# Recovering the Reformed Confession - Thoughts?



## TaylorOtwell

I am nearly finished reading through Dr. R. Scott Clark's _Recovering the Reformed Confession_. I have found it to be very insightful and beneficial, and I would heartily commend it to anyone interested in recovering a confessional theology, piety, and practice. Particularly, his discussion that connects Christian liberty with only singing inspired songs in corporate worship was very helpful, and probably my favorite section of the book. It made me long to see confessional Reformed worship recovered in the churches. 

Has anyone else read the book? If so, what were your thoughts?


----------



## PresbyDane

No sounds good though


----------



## larryjf

I really enjoyed the book.
I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).

Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

larryjf said:


> I really enjoyed the book.
> I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).
> 
> Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.



I agree. When I was in college (2004-2008), I found QIRE one of the biggest problems facing the other professing Christian students. The concept of God ordaining specific means of grace (word, sacramant, prayer) was neglected and misunderstood. Instead, the Scriptures were substituted for a so-called "still small voice" in the "heart of hearts". To speak against this method of relating to God is often ridiculed as being "cold and dead". But, in my opinion, true, Biblical sanctification will never occur unless the Reformed understanding of the means of grace are recovered.


----------



## OPC'n

Would like to read it but would want to balance it with another book which has support for singing hymns also.


----------



## dbroyles

I appreciate these thoughts on _Recovering the Reformed Confession_. I can't wait to dig into the book!


----------



## Hamalas

I really want that book! Now all I need is some money.


----------



## Josiah

I have wanted to purchase this book also but havnt had the money to do so. I do enjoy reading the RSC's posts on the Heidelblog, especially concerning QIRE.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick

Anecdotally, I read Clark's RRC and Hart's Lost Soul of American Protestantism right before I presented a paper at a conference on the nature of religious belief this past April. Before (and esp. after) the conference I realized that these two books go to the heart of who we are as Reformed. You see, we have a fundamentally different way of defining ourselves and thinking about our identity qua-Reformed than most other believers (religious or non-), summed up in the concept of being "confessional." I discussed this to many professors of religion/theology and sociology of religion who do not come from such a tradition, and I found that they simply could not understand such self-identification by reference to a public document of propositional beliefs that has, in most cases, a clear interpretation. My friend (also an OPC member who hold an MDiv from RTS) asked a question about the future of such confessional self-understanding and scholarship in the academic world at this conference, and I said (much to the frustration of many there) that it has a dismal future in many departments because most people have no categories whatsoever to understand such confessional believers, and they must redescribe and ultimately misrepresent believers like me (/us) (in postmodern, narrative, or whatever terminology happens to be popular).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Getting a copy of RRC for free*

Josiah,

As much as I would like you to own the book I would rather have you read it for free than not read it! 

You can order a copy for free via inter-library loan from a public or school library. If you are a student in a school you may ask your library to do it or you may go to your local public library and ask them to order it for you. This service (may be reduced because of the financial crisis) is tax-funded and is usually free or inexpensive. 

You might also ask your church librarian to order a copy or ask your local library to order and shelve a copy. 

Best,

rsc



Josiah said:


> I have wanted to purchase this book also but havnt had the money to do so. I do enjoy reading the RSC's posts on the Heidelblog, especially concerning QIRE.



-----Added 4/20/2009 at 02:52:02 EST-----

Hi Sara,

I understand your reluctance, but what would you say if you learned that the singing of uninspired hymns wasn't a part of the Reformation and that the practice only began when we began to lose our way? 

I understand that most people do not now worship in the same way we did from c. 1530-1789 but we should not assume that the way we worship now is necessarily correct or the way it's always been done. 

The book isn't really all about what we sing in worship. The book is about how we define the adjective "Reformed." Are there as many definitions as there are definers?

I hope you'll give it a read.

rsc



sjonee said:


> Would like to read it but would want to balance it with another book which has support for singing hymns also.


----------



## tcalbrecht

larryjf said:


> I really enjoyed the book.
> I especially liked his fleshing out of the *"Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" *and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).
> 
> Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.



There's an interesting critique of the book by Paul Manata here at Triablogue.

BTW, when I ponder the title of this book I think of the American Church moving back to the original text of the Westminster and Belgic Confessions.


----------



## markkoller

Personally, I think this book is one of the most important books to come out in a long time. It should be required reading for every pastor/elder or seminary student.

The current "Reformed" world seems to have a very selective memory of its own history, especially its confessions. I fall into that category as well since I have only recently been convinced of exclusive Psalmody. Dr. Clark was helpful in bringing me over to that position. 

Thanks Dr. Clark for your amazing work!!!


----------



## DonP

larryjf said:


> I really enjoyed the book.
> I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).



Wow that sounds good. I also think many are seeking to be "right" so they can do it right, and thus miss doing it right, which is in liberty and not by a rule, but by drawing close to the Lord and having the Spirit convict and guide us and give us new desires to please God. forming Christ in us and conforming us to Christ. 
Is this addressed at all?


----------



## ExGentibus

I have finally found it at a bookstore on this side on the pond that has it in stock and ordered a copy today. Can't wait for it to arrive.


----------



## ubermadchen

I've read it and I agree QIRE and QIRC helped explain a lot of things I've seen in reformed and the larger evangelical culture. I found his arguments on EP to be a bit lacking but that could have been due to the limited amount of space he had to write on it. Overall, it was a good read and something that I would recommend to others in the reformed camp.


----------



## DMcFadden

I have started it and greatly appreciate it so far.


----------



## MW

I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.


----------



## DonP

armourbearer said:


> I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.



Can you clarify or puts some quotes in. 

Is he saying the Confession would be an illegitimate way to have certainty of what is right or truth? 

I wrote PM him and asked if he addresses strict subscription, he said yes but didn't say which side he fell on. What does he say about this?


----------



## tcalbrecht

PeaceMaker said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify or puts some quotes in.
> 
> Is he saying the Confession would be an illegitimate way to have certainty of what is right or truth?
> 
> I wrote PM him and asked if he addresses strict subscription, he said yes but didn't say which side he fell on. What does he say about this?
Click to expand...

Comments from Paul Manata's critique:


> Like with Frame, the problems in this section [on The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC)] arise because, so it looks, Clark chose to use his book (also) as a pretext to take shots at those views (and persons) he’s made clear on the web and other venues that he disagrees with. …
> 
> We can press further questioning the very validity or application of QIRC to 6/24 (or theonomy for that matter). Surely Clark knows that the 6/24 view purports to be believed because “God has revealed it.” Recall the definition of QIRC Clark gave: “QIRC is the pursuit to know God in ways he has not revealed himself and to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable” (p.39). But 6/24 believes this view is revealed! They’re not attempting to know God (or his ways) in ways he has not revealed - unless you add that assumption promised not to be made: you weigh in on the exegetical case and render a negative verdict, in which case we have a massive petitio principii. In that case the 6/24 can simply reverse the charge and claim Framework is a QIRC since it is not revealed, and so is an attempt to know God in a way not revealed. (I have also had some of Clark’s students tell me that I’m not Reformed because of my 6/24 view. They also indicated that I “denied the gospel” because I held to 6/24. So it looks like little QIRCers are being produces at WSCAL.)
> …
> So, Clark fails to show that 6/24 (or 6/24 as boundary marker) is a QIRC. In fact, I could apply similar comments to all his examples of QIRCs. And so the problem now is, “To have real meaning” QIRC “as a universal, must have particulars, but it is exceedingly difficult to find those particulars, and even when some are nominated, there are multiple filters for determining which are included and which are not” (p.214). Ironically, then, has Clark turned his QIRC a “meaningless” category?


----------



## MW

PeaceMaker said:


> Can you clarify or puts some quotes in.



Leaving aside the methodological difficulties associated with "biblicism" and "rationalism," the main problem is that Dr. Clark is presenting his own peculiar preferences in the reformed tradition as the reformed tradition itself. The days of creation is a blatant problem. It is there in black and white. This cannot be denied, and therefore the book attempts to explain it away. He makes a passing criticism of the reformation idea of a "standard" translation of the Bible. The concept of "Christendom" is dismissed wholesale as a mistake, even though it is maintained by every reformed confession and by means of it the reformed movement was able to exercise such an influence in society as led to the formation of the great tradition Dr Clark is both recommending and revising. While I sympathise with the book's criticism of revivalism, it is painful to hear that well attested and accepted movements like the Great Awakening is to be condemned as another quest for illegitimate certainty. Revivals are manifestations of religious principles, and should be tested according to the teaching which they promote, not outrightly rejected as if all religious experience is spurious. Lastly, the section on confessional revision is somewhat simplistic in its presentation. It fails to acknowledge that reformation confessions were rewritten specifically to foster broader religious unity. They were not revised for the purpose of validating the latest theological fad, but to form provincial, national, and international ties with brethren of the same mind. But the book has some very strong points as well. Foremost is the reformed view of the church and its worship which is presented in it. At last somebody in the academic establishment is willing to voice concerns over the anarchy which prevails in many denominations springing from the reformed tradition. I pray this concern is fostered and leads to a thorough reformation.


----------



## Marrow Man

markkoller said:


> Personally, I think this book is one of the most important books to come out in a long time. It should be required reading for every pastor/elder or seminary student.



I agree. Too many in the Reformed community have lost their way with regard to confessional fidelity. Even in my seminary days, I remember getting into a heated discussion in the break room one day over how many "exceptions" he was to take to the WCF. And we have a steady stream of works coming from _within _the Reformed community that are written contra-confessionally. I am only about 1/3 of the way through the book, but it seems to be a good antidote to such drifting away from our Reformed Standards.


----------



## Vytautas

Clark ment that people use 6/24 creation as a boundry marker of who is reformed, and not that the belief in 6/24 creation is QIRCy.


----------



## Prufrock

I realize the thread is a few weeks old, but I was able to go through this book again a few days ago; and--while there is certainly room to differ from the author on the application of some of the principles, especially for those coming from a more Scottish Presbyterian background--I can think of few better resources out there for introducing more mainline friends and colleagues to the meaning of Confessionalism. The book is accessible, clear, easy to read and presents well the importance, virtue and benefit of being confessional, along with giving an historical framework in which to understand this topic. I would highly recommend giving this to friends and family who aren't quite sure what you mean when you claim to be "Confessional," especially those who see our worship practices as strange and novel.


----------



## mvdm

In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:

Ordained Servant

Summary line from the review:

<i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Thanks to the kind invitation of the editor, a response is forthcoming next month. Let's just say that the author does not recognize his own book in the review. 

Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog

Shaun Nolan and Matt Bohling give the book a somewhat more positive review on their Ordinary Means podcast this month:
The Books Podcast Ordinary Means

You can see links to other reviews here: (not all the posts under this heading are reviews but many are)

Recovering The Reformed Confession — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress


----------



## jogri17

Just ordered a copy via inner-library loan.


----------



## CharlieJ

mvdm said:


> In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:
> 
> Ordained Servant
> 
> Summary line from the review:
> 
> <i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>



This review seemed a bit overly negative. I agree with many of the negative points he made, but found quite a few positive points in RRC as well. 

I find myself in general agreement with the sentiments expressed by Triablogue, Rev. Strange, and Rev. Winzer. The QIRC and (to a lesser extent) QIRE labels are poor choices. You can't know whether six-day creation is a quest for illegitimate certainty without knowing two things - 

1) God's intention in giving Genesis 1 
2) a person reached the 6/24 position through an _a priori_ method. 

#1 is essentially begging the question, since your perception of what God intended to communicate is determined by your position on the passage. #2 would require knowing that a person reached the 6/24 position through the _a priori_ proposition "Genesis 1 must teach the exact timing of the creation." In reality, every 6/24 I have met holds their position based on _a posteriori_ engagement with the passage. Thus, on both counts, Clark fails to prove a QIRC. Similar issues plague the other examples. I also think his archetypal/ectypal distinction, though true, is overblown in connection to the QIRC. However, that doesn't make his conclusions invalid. I just would have appreciated a more neutral (honest) label, such as "Things that are wrong in Reformed theology."

As far as QIRE goes, I think he has a stronger case for the category, although what he puts in there is open to question. 

Overall, I thought the book was helpful to my learning. It certainly helped me think through my confessional identity and theology of worship (I find it interesting that Catholics have an explicit category "liturgical theology" but we don't). It exposed me to a different viewpoint on the American Awakenings and the role of the means of grace. I found it stylistically appropriate, neither condescending nor obscure; it is an engaging read.


----------



## Josiah

I recently ordered my copy of RRC and I cant Waite to read it!


----------



## mvdm

CharlieJ said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:
> 
> Ordained Servant
> 
> Summary line from the review:
> 
> <i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This review seemed a bit overly negative. I agree with many of the negative points he made, but found quite a few positive points in RRC as well.
> 
> I find myself in general agreement with the sentiments expressed by Triablogue, Rev. Strange, and Rev. Winzer. The QIRC and (to a lesser extent) QIRE labels are poor choices. You can't know whether six-day creation is a quest for illegitimate certainty without knowing two things -
Click to expand...


Actually, the review was quite charitable. Note that there was much more critique of Clark's misrepresentation of Edwards that Strange did not lay out due to space limitations. Based on my own reading, I can see it would take quite a few pages to do a detailed unraveling of what was constructed on that topic.


----------



## SolaGratia

I got mine yesterday!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Sebastian Heck's response*

Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog

Yes, posting Sebastian's reply is self-serving--_mea culpa_--but he did a better job of responding than I did:



> Disappointing indeed, as was Dr. Strange’s presentation at the “Animus Imponentis Conference” earlier this year.
> 
> First, Strange misses the “irenical” character of RRC when he says:
> “What it means to follow the Reformed confessions (note now the plural)—to develop one’s theology, piety, and practice from such—is more textured and varied than Clark lets on in this book. It is not accurate to present such a thin slice of what it means to be Reformed and argue as if that constricted view is exhaustive of the Reformed faith. Clark occasionally cites Richard Muller in support of his approach, as if Muller’s project of showing concord between Calvin and the Calvinists was intended to present a narrow, uniform Calvinism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”
> 
> The way I understood RRC, the use of the singular “Reformed confession” did not narrow the focus at all, but rather broaden it into the broad consensus of what the Reformed have historically held in common.
> 
> Second, so the archetypal/ectypal distinction is NOT “confessionally warranted” according to Dr. Strange? If so we probably need to discuss what WCF 1.1 and 7.1 actually mean.
> 
> However, where Dr. Strange’s review gets really disappinting is when he says “we need more than these things…” and then launches into how we need more emphasis on union with Christ and communion with God and each other etc. Come on! Is that his recipe for reformation?
> 
> Then, he defines “orthodoxism” as, quote, “an emphasis on the forms, on the means of grace, for example, in which the means threaten to become ends in themselves”. True, the latter would be bad, but the former? So, back to Kant and the old argument of form vs. content, eh?
> 
> Showing, as you do in RRC, the dangers of an Edwardsian QIRE, does NOT mean, as Strange alleges, an inability “to profit from a remarkably sin-sensitive, Christ-centered writer.” It just ain’t the same thing. One can warn of consequences of a certain view and still profit from it in part.
> 
> When Dr. Strange quotes WCF 21.6 to disprove your view in RRC that “private prayer is not a means of grace”, he shows no awareness of the age-old discussion of the function of prayer as a means of grace in the Continental Reformed confessions and the Westminster Standards. Again, Strange misses Clark’s irenical case for an understanding of prayer that does justice to BOTH the Cont. Ref. confessions AND the Westminster tradition.
> 
> Finally, when Strange says, “We need restoration in which the outer follows the inner. This was the dynamic of the great Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”- I beg to differ. The genious of the Reformation, and with it, of the Reformed confession (singular!) is the unity between the outer and the inner, call it sacramental union or something else, and decisively NOT that a hollow “outer” follows some pietistic “inner”.
> 
> This review is nothing that gives me no second thoughts whatsoever about what I have read, appreciated and enjoyed in RRC. Keep up the good work!


----------



## greenbaggins

I have reviewed the book here. I don't wish my minor disagreements with Scott to cloud the value of the book, which I think is tremendous. On the issue of a literal 6/24 creation week, I do think there are those who would illegitimately disband people from the church for not believing it. I believe in 6/24 creation week, and do not think that the belief itself is QIRC. But then, I don't think that is what Clark is saying, either. It is not the belief itself that Clark attacks, but a certain way that belief is being (ab)used in the church today. I do think it ought to be listed as an exception to the Westminster Standards, because the standards clearly teach it. I also think Clark may have been a bit harsh on Jonathan Edwards. I don't agree with everything Edwards said, but his treatise on Religious Affections was designed to combat the very tendencies that Clark rails against in QIRE, in my opinion. These two areas should not diminish, however, the great value the book has, especially in clearly setting forth what a confessional church ought to look like.


----------



## mvdm

greenbaggins said:


> I have reviewed the book here. I also think Clark may have been a bit harsh on Jonathan Edwards. I don't agree with everything Edwards said, but his treatise on Religious Affections was designed to combat the very tendencies that Clark rails against in QIRE, in my opinion.



I'm working on a review documenting the misrepresentations of Edwards, which I hope to complete in the near future. I picked up on what Lane mentioned here, that the Treatise on Religious Affections runs directly contrary to Clark's lumping Edwards into sundry nefarious categories. When I was reading RRC{sic}, I seriously questioned whether Clark had even read the book.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.

-----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----

Lane,

Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:

"according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I found Iain Murray's biography of Edwards to be much more balanced and one that men like Mark Noll found to be much more "of Edwards" than Marsden's.


----------



## mvdm

R. Scott Clark said:


> Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.
> 
> 
> 
> No guns will be necessary, Scott. Edwards can easily defend himself.
> 
> And yes, I have read Marsden's biography, as well as Murray's.
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

R. Scott Clark said:


> Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.
> 
> -----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----
> 
> Lane,
> 
> Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:
> 
> "according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”



Well, I certainly would not agree with Edwards in his doctrine of continued creation. Hodge was right in saying that Edwards's doctrine was essentially pantheistic _in its consequences_. I think that is an important modifier, however. Hodge is not claiming that Edwards thought of his own doctrine as pantheistic. Even on Hodge's own reading of Edwards, Edwards thought of God as the only true substance and the world as having a dependent existence (see Hodge, ST II, p. 218). Let me ask you this, though, Scott (and this is a genuine question, not a snarky one): what exactly do you think is the relevance of Edwards's view of continued creation, on the one hand, to the Great Awakening, on the other (and by implication QIRE)? And does Edwards have anything to say about what you call QIRE in his book Religious Affections?


----------



## Archlute

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I found Iain Murray's biography of Edwards to be much more balanced and one that men like Mark Noll found to be much more "of Edwards" than Marsden's.



Indeed. While some may accuse Murray's biography of falling into a "Golden Age" representation of persons and events, I found that Marsden often fell off to the other side (which for some reason seems to be more respectable in our circles) of trying to please the academy and standing a little too detached from what should be the acknowledged and impacting reality of Christian truth in a biography that necessarily interacts not just with a man's theology and life on an academic level, but with the reality of his faith in Christ.

It's of the same cloth as McCulloch's work on Cranmer. Measured, informative, but ultimately devoid of any real Christian warmth (at least until McCullochs final chapter). And, no, I don't believe that it is good historical practice to try and separate our Christian faith from our understanding of history; secularists certainly don't chuck their atheism and existentialism/nihilism/etc when composing their own works.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lane,

My point wasn't to set fire to St Jonathan but to call attention to the uncomfortable aspects of his theology and their connection with the 1GA and to the subsequent tradition. The point of that move is to suggest that perhaps (just perhaps!) Edwards is not the paradigm for the way forward.

I tried to point the ontological turn marked by his theology. One way to put it is that it marked a turn from Aristotle (17th-century Reformed orthodoxy) to Plato. As I re-read him, after reading Schleiermacher and others, I found him to anticipate aspects of Romanticism (subjectivism) that have continued to influence Reformed piety in the modern period. This is highly problematic and the neo-Platonic aspects of his thought have been downplayed because it doesn't fit the prevailing myth of Edwards circulated among orthodox Calvinists. The ontological turn is not innocent. In all likelihood it is organically connected to the problems with his doctrine of justification. One cannot utterly divorce Edwards from the more problematic side of his theological/intellectual family tree (New Haven). 

We can and must appreciate Edwards but we should read him critically. Typically, in my experience, this is not the way he is read in our circles.

I also wanted to issue an implicit caution about the renewed enthusiasm for all things Edwardsean represented by the Desiring God movement. I'm concerned about the long-term effect of "Christian hedonism." I'm concerned about the effect it will have on ordinary means (i.e. Word and sacrament) ministry. I'm concerned that it moves the Christian life away from dying to self and living to Christ, away from the realism of the Reformed confessions to the idealism of Cambridge Platonism and other pantheizing tendencies. I'm concerned about the quasi-Pentecostal piety I see among those who seem most devoted to Edwards. I'm concerned about an over-realized eschatology. I'm concerned about a theology of glory.

I realize that, for those who are not in touch with the academic literature on Edwards, some of what I wrote might be a little shocking. Before folk fly into a rage over my criticisms of some aspects of the 1GA (which was really the point of the chapter) they ought to read some of the lit for themselves. 

The real point of the QIRE chapter is to take issue with the revival paradigm, to challenge the notion that it's possible to separate cleanly revivalism from revival. I worry about folk sitting about praying for revival or worse, for making the next "Great Awakening" the be all and end all of the Christian life instead of getting on with the Christian life in the here and now. I worry about the effect of a mythological, golden-age history of the 18th-century which bears little relation to the history as historians know it.




greenbaggins said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.
> 
> -----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----
> 
> Lane,
> 
> Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:
> 
> "according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly would not agree with Edwards in his doctrine of continued creation. Hodge was right in saying that Edwards's doctrine was essentially pantheistic _in its consequences_. I think that is an important modifier, however. Hodge is not claiming that Edwards thought of his own doctrine as pantheistic. Even on Hodge's own reading of Edwards, Edwards thought of God as the only true substance and the world as having a dependent existence (see Hodge, ST II, p. 218). Let me ask you this, though, Scott (and this is a genuine question, not a snarky one): what exactly do you think is the relevance of Edwards's view of continued creation, on the one hand, to the Great Awakening, on the other (and by implication QIRE)? And does Edwards have anything to say about what you call QIRE in his book Religious Affections?
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

I can agree quite thoroughly with all your concerns about directions. I am concerned about most of the same things. I also agree that Edwards needs to be read critically (like any other Reformed theologian). I do not read Edwards uncritically. As I have already pointed out, I don't agree with him on everything. However, I do not see his doctrine of justification as problematic. I have read everything Edwards wrote on justification (except for some of the Miscellanies). I agree with Jeff Waddington's article on it. I also think Edwards might have been more aware of the dangers of pietism than you have allowed him to be. I think Religious Affections was written precisely to _combat_ these problems, not to further them. Edwards saw the problems of overly enthusiastic emotions that leave the basis of doctrine and go on to pure experience. As Marsden notes, "Gentleness and genuinely self-renouncing humility were far better evidences of true saintliness than were merely intense experiences...As the awakening was receding, defeated by its own excesses, he had preached a series of sermons on the proper place of religious affections in the Christian life..._Affections_ was directed first of all toward the misguided emphases of the extreme New Lights who had led many people into arrogant self-delusion" (pp. 284-285). Marsden goes on to note that Edwards's crucial question in all of this "was how to tell true religion from its Satanic counterfeits" (ibid.). Even the so-called true signs of genuine religion were NOT definitive tests for distinguishing true believers from self-deluded counterfeits, a project that was impossible (p. 286). Is this not proof that _Religious Affections_ is not an exercise in QIRE, but rather a move in a direction away from it? 

Let me ask you another question, if I may: is there a difference between piety and pietism? Is there such a thing as private means of grace? Is Edwards's piety more along the line of a'Brakel or is it more like Wesley?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lane,

I understand that you're not uncritical of E but that isn't true, in my experience, of most readers of Edwards in our circles. I suspect that most are completely unaware that there might be any problems with Edwards' theology or piety.

As to his doctrine of justification, there are good folks on both sides of this question. For me, there's no reason for any Reformed minister to be confusing about justification. I think the root of that confusion is in Edwards' debt to idealism and neo-Platonism. There's no doubt among serious Calvin or Luther scholars about their doctrines of justification sola gratia, sola fide. As I acknowledged in the book, Edwards can be found to say orthodox things but the can also be found to say unorthodox things. That's a problem. I don't understand the reflex to defend Edwards at every point. Why is he such a hero? I suspect it's because folk (not necessarily you) identify with his quest for the immediate encounter with God. That's a powerful point of connection. People really want that. They aren't satisfied with mere Word and sacrament ministry. If John Piper were advocating nothing more than knowing God, in Christ, through ordinary means would he be as popular as he is? I guess not.

Edwards was aware of the dangers posed by the 1GA as I indicated in the book. Your comments suggest that perhaps you didn't read this section as carefully as I wrote it. I knew that I would take heat for this chapter so I was pretty careful to note that Edwards was trying to protect against excess. Nevertheless, I think that he (and others with him) was a part of the problem he helped to create. That he tried to moderate its excesses doesn't exonerate him exactly. This is true of Religious Affections. My criticism of RA wasn't his attempt to correct the problem but rather the premise from which he attempted to correct the problem. I think some critics have missed that aspect of the argument. The whole 1GA is an evidence of QIRE. The 1GA was not marked by realism or ordinary Word and sacrament ministry. Indeed, as I pointed out in the book, studies suggest strongly that the 1GA wasn't good for attendance to the means of grace. 

As you must know from the book Lane, I distinguished clearly between piety and pietism. That was one of the great points of the book. I'm surprised you asked the question.

I think Edwards was more like Wesley than Brakel but there's a bit of pietism in Brakel too.

As to private means of grace, that has to be considered very carefully.

What do you think?


----------



## greenbaggins

Thanks for the clarifications, Scott. They are helpful. One or two points still need to be clarified, in my opinion. One is this: why would lack of agreement among Edwards scholars imply that Edwards himself was wrong or ambiguous on justification? I know that you are saying that he seems ambiguous at best. I simply fail to see the ambiguity just because some scholars have seen it. As I said, my reading of the original Edwards sources in comparison with Owen, Turretin, Calvin, Buchanan, and a host of others on justification proves to my satisfaction at least that Edwards was solid on justification, even if he wasn't solid on some other things. I don't see how his Platonism influences that. Of course, as you probably have guessed by now, I do not see Edwards as the hero that many see him as, though I certainly regard him as a genius of a theologian. 

Secondly, although you did note that Edwards was trying to guard against excesses in RA, you are definitely interpreting RA as being against the means of grace. But if he argues that these responses come from the Spirit working through the _preached_ Word (as you yourself, not to mention Marsden, admit), how is that attacking the means of grace, when he is arguing that the true revival can only come _from_ the means of grace (at least the primary means of grace)? Are you arguing that Edwards advocated only occasional preaching revivals? Yet it was during his weekly preaching that the revivals happened. 

Thirdly, regarding the distinction of piety and pietism, you say on page 74 that "_Pietism_ is not to be confused with _piety_, which describes the Christian life and worship; pietism describes a retreat into the subjective experience of God." "The Christian life and worship," however, is ambiguous with regard to possible subjective elements of true piety. Were you meaning to exclude private Bible reading and private prayer and private catechising from the definition of piety? Is all confessionally Reformed piety corporate? Or must all confessionally Reformed piety be tied specifically and directly to the corporate means of grace? It would seem to me that we cannot exclude private devotional piety from true piety, despite the dangers that lurk on every side. I would never desire to exclude a connection between private and corporate piety. However, neither do I want to make them indistinguishable. The example of Daniel comes to mind, not to mention Jesus' injunction in Matthew 6:6. Yes, a retreat into pure subjectivism is a huge danger in modern society that advocates a "me and my Bible and Jesus" mentality. I think I'm just as much against that despising of the church as you are. However, private piety is biblical, I believe, as long as it does not oppose, but is connected to (though not identical with) the corporate means of grace.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lane,

You seemed to admit/concede above that there are problems in the Misc. with Edwards' doctrine of justification. I did not indict Edwards' doctrine of justification but I did want to signal to people that there serious and, as yet (to my mind), unanswered questions. I don't see how any reasonable person can deny that Edwards' was ambiguous about justification. He may have been fundamentally orthodox or it may be that he is best read as being mostly orthodox or whatever, but the very existence of extensive literature on both sides is prima facie evidence that Edwards was ambiguous. The existence of the New Haven connection, the fact that Old Princeton honored him in name, but, as Noll notes, downplayed the substance of his theology in certain respects (Hodge and Warfield were NOT ambiguous about justification, nor were they idealists or neo-Platonists) suggests this too.

Are there continuities with the older tradition? Yes, but Edwards was doing something that they were not. Edwards was under influences that they were not. We need to pay attention to that. I don't think it's helpful to deny that Edwards' was influenced by neo-Platonism and to observe the effects of his idealism. 

We may disagree fundamentally on that. Fine. It's not personal. For me its about getting the history right.

On other things, however, I don't think we're that far apart. I wrote at some length about prayer and private piety (and that seems to have been ignored) but the emphasis on the book is on public worship.

I understand that people are tempted to interpret my emphasis on the objective means of grace as an attack on piety but that's just the point, isn't it? The attack begs the question (it assumes that private piety = piety). Why do you think the FV movement arose in the first place? It was a misplaced, ignorant response to pietism. I wanted to offer an account of the objectivity of the means of grace within its proper, historical, confessional context. 

I don't apologize for giving priority to public worship over private piety just as I give logical priority to the gospel and justification sola fide to the Spirit-wrought response to that grace in prayer. If we do not have the gospel and worship straight, we will not understand the Christian life properly.

The paradox of the faith is that we produce piety in our people not by telling them, "be holy," but by pointing them to Christ through which message the Spirit has promised to act to create faith and union with Christ (WSC 30; HC 65) and thence piety and sanctity.

The effect of the 1GA was to downplay the means of grace. The whole history of the 1GA was to move the center of piety away from the ordinary in favor of the extraordinary. I agree that, for JE, preaching was hugely important but the end of it came to be in the earlier Tennant and others the QIRE. That's hard to dispute. The modern reception of the 1GA is also not oriented toward to ordinary but the extraordinary.

I hope you'll go back and read the chapter as carefully as I wrote. Try not to read it defensively. 

In light of the book do you really believe that "Christian life and worship" is ambiguous? I'm not against private piety. I'm quite in favor of it, but I want to put it back in its place, if you will. It is the servant of the public means of grace.

I've written extensively about the need to catechize. I understand that has to be done privately as well as publicly. The two don't have to be set against each other. Do you really think that's what I'm trying to do?


----------



## greenbaggins

A couple of things in reply. I'm not sure how you got "admit that there are problems in the Misc." concerning Edwards's doctrine of justification from my admission that I had not read the Misc. on justification. I simply have not read them on justification. I have only read his longer treatises and sermons on justification. You say this, "but the very existence of extensive literature on both sides is prima facie evidence that Edwards was ambiguous." I do not acknowledge that this argument is logical. By this argument, if there are two vociferous sides to any question, it brings the issue itself into question. Would you acknowledge the same about Meredith Kline? There are loads of people who argue that Kline is not confessional, as well as loads of people who argue that he is. Does that seem to you to prove that Kline is not confessional? Would you even argue that Kline is not clear on the supposedly controverted points? You haven't in the past, and I would agree with you on Kline, even if I don't agree with Kline on everything. Even if you were to argue that the confessional critics of Kline are not versed in the original sources as Kline was, this isn't true of all of Kline's critics. 

I wouldn't deny at all that Edwards was influenced by neo-Platonism. I merely question whether that made his doctrine of justification suspect. At the very least, we should ask the question of the original sources. It is being asked, of course, by many scholars, who are coming to differing opinions. But, as I said above, I don't accept the logic that says that because people differ on something, that therefore the thing itself is ambiguous. 

Yes, you do speak of prayer and private piety, but not under the category of the means of grace. Your discussion of it falls in the subheading of the fruit of the Spirit (pp. 111-112), which is followed immediately by the subheading "the due use of ordinary means." If you were not intending to exclude private piety from the due use of the means of grace, then please forgive me for misunderstanding you. It just doesn't seem exceptionally clear that you are including private piety in the means of grace itself. I can agree completely with the statement that the private means of grace are the servant(s) of the public means of grace. I agree that we are really not far apart in actual doctrine, and I'm glad of that, because I would hate to disagree with you on a doctrinal matter. Where we seem to differ is in the evaluation of the 1GA. You seem to pan it entirely, whereas I think there are some good things to glean from it (I certainly do not agree with it completely). If preaching was hugely important for Edwards, then was it _for Edwards_ a QIRE? You said in your comment that it was for Tennent and others a QIRE, but you didn't actually say it was for Edwards. It seems to me pretty hard to dispute that the revival that happened under Edwards's preaching happened _in the weekly service_. Is there no variation among the 1GA advocates? 

I would _never_ interpret your emphasis on the objective means of grace to be an attack on piety itself. I hope you have not interpreted me as having done so. I am only asking whether _private_ piety is part of the means of grace or not. I can agree with you also that the public means of grace take priority. We may not entirely agree as to whether all of private piety must be immediately subservient to the public means of grace. Matthew 6:6 would seem to mitigate against such a position. But this is a very small matter indeed. I hope you are not reading my statements as being defensive. I am not intending to be. Nor am I intending to be antagonistic.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lane,

I'm sorry, I misread what you wrote. The recent lit re JE and justification has focused on the Misc.

Yes, I do think MGK was unclear. His earlier lit (edited by others) was MUCH clearer than his later writing (which was largely unedited).

Edwards was ambiguous because he said different things at different times. We'll just have to agree to disagree (like the sec lit).

As I read the history of theology, the turn to ontology has been highly problematic. Edwards is a part of that tradition. It relocates the problem away from sin as a moral/legal category and makes it a matter of being. Historically, when that has happened problems in justification have followed. I see JE as part of that pattern.

We maI do believe that I did describe prayer as a means of grace but we may have to disagree about the way to speak of private piety. I am not willing yet to call it a means of grace in the same way that the public, divinely ordained means are means of grace. In this I'm influenced by Berkhof's language in his Reformed Dogmatics/ST. I wouldn't be quite as strong today as LB was then but I understand his point. I'm also influenced by the fact that the very idea of private bible reading is truly modern thing. Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said! 

What do you make of that scholarship which argues that there really was no 1GA, that there were local revivals and good publicity? Have you read Stout on Whitefield?

Again, we may simply have to disagree about the benefits of the 1GA.

Do you see any unhappy results from the 1GA? 

Do you think we can hermetically seal the 1GA from the 2GA?


----------



## greenbaggins

R. Scott Clark said:


> Lane,
> 
> I'm sorry, I misread what you wrote. The recent lit re JE and justification has focused on the Misc.
> 
> Yes, I do think MGK was unclear. His earlier lit (edited by others) was MUCH clearer than his later writing (which was largely unedited).
> 
> Edwards was ambiguous because he said different things at different times. We'll just have to agree to disagree (like the sec lit).
> 
> As I read the history of theology, the turn to ontology has been highly problematic. Edwards is a part of that tradition. It relocates the problem away from sin as a moral/legal category and makes it a matter of being. Historically, when that has happened problems in justification have followed. I see JE as part of that pattern.
> 
> We maI do believe that I did describe prayer as a means of grace but we may have to disagree about the way to speak of private piety. I am not willing yet to call it a means of grace in the same way that the public, divinely ordained means are means of grace. In this I'm influenced by Berkhof's language in his Reformed Dogmatics/ST. I wouldn't be quite as strong today as LB was then but I understand his point. I'm also influenced by the fact that the very idea of private bible reading is truly modern thing. Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said!
> 
> What do you make of that scholarship which argues that there really was no 1GA, that there were local revivals and good publicity? Have you read Stout on Whitefield?
> 
> Again, we may simply have to disagree about the benefits of the 1GA.
> 
> Do you see any unhappy results from the 1GA?
> 
> Do you think we can hermetically seal the 1GA from the 2GA?



I can now understand your concern with regard to neo-Platonism. I'll have to dig into the Misc. on justification to see if he makes it a question of ontology. He certainly did not in his treatises and sermons. 

Haven't evaluated the scholarship regarding whether there was a general revival or not, although it seems at first glance a bit weird to say there was no general awakening. Haven't read Stout on Whitefield. I've only read Dallimore. 

I think there was a very unfair attack on the Old Side folks simply for voicing concerns that came out of the 1GA. That kind of unfair attack has continued down to the present. 

I do think the 1GA is far more Calvinistic than the 2GA, which I regard as much more highly problematic, because of the heretical soteriology involved (especially in Finney, who was an out and out Pelagian, not even semi). The 2GA most definitely despised the ordinary use of the means of grace (whether the 1GA did so might be ambiguous, but there is no ambiguity in the 2GA). So, at least in these two areas, there are, I think, significant differences. It would be hard to argue that there was zero continuity (how would one do that?). But it would not be difficult, I think, to posit at least some significant enough differences. I find little to commend in the 2GA.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Scott,
Pardon my jumping in; I just want to make sure you are doing no more than pointing out that we are more blessed to have the Word much more available than in past history. The Westminster Standards (and the Scottish directory for family worship) make it pretty clear private reading of the Scriptures is an obligation. Would you disagree with that? 



R. Scott Clark said:


> I'm also influenced by the fact that the very idea of private bible reading is truly modern thing. Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Chris,

I had those places in the Standards in mind when I wrote the response. I tried to write carefully so as not to suggest anything contrary to the Standards (through which I just finished teaching this spring in our Confessions course).

I'm making an historical point that we often forget. If it is the case that printed bibles didn't exist before the late modern period (and that is the case) and if it is the case that for the history of redemption most people ONLY heard the Word read and taught, it cannot be the case that private bible reading is on an equal plane with the authorized public proclamation of it.

I'm not suggesting in any way that God's people do not have an obligation to read the bible now that we have them, in our own language, to hand but I do want us to be cautious not to invent a new means of grace that came into existence in the late medieval period. I think we're justly critical of Rome for doing just that!



NaphtaliPress said:


> Scott,
> Pardon my jumping in; I just want to make sure you are doing no more than pointing out that we are more blessed to have the Word much more available than in past history. The Westminster Standards (and the Scottish directory for family worship) make it pretty clear private reading of the Scriptures is an obligation. Would you disagree with that?
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also influenced by the fact that the very idea of private bible reading is truly modern thing. Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said!
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

R. Scott Clark said:


> Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said!



B.B. Warfield has an essay (the first one in the _Selected Shorter Writings_, v.1) called "The Bible the Book of Mankind". There he marshals an argument that would seem to indicate that your statement here is rather too sweeping. It describes some dark periods in church history, but it does not describe them all.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

One of the reasons I wrote the book was to let readers know what I discovered. I didn't intend to write on Edwards or the 1GA. I was doing some background research for a paragraph and one thing led to another. That's one reason why the book took 5 years. Those who are going to open upon on the book with both guns have a moral obligation to do the same research I did before they start in. It takes time.

Another thing, as I indicated in the book, that I wanted to work out is problem of the relation between what is, in many of our churches, and what was. I read history organically. Things don't just drop out of the sky. The silliness we see in contemporary "Reformed" worship didn't just happen. It has roots. What are those roots? The traditional/accepted story is that the 2GA was "the bad guy." Whence the 2GA? That's Iain Murray's argument that the 1GA was "good" and the 2GA was "bad," but, as I noted in the book, when push comes to shove even Iain isn't entirely consistent. I heard him lecture on this when I was teaching in Wheaton. His bottom line is "the right sort" of religious experience. This was the Doctor's bottom line too and Packer's. This is why the Dr wanted to qualify Calvinism with Methodism. This is why Jim Packer signed ECT. At the end of the day, Idris Cardinal Cassidy was able to testify to the right sort of religious experience. When did American Presbyterians begin to lose the DPW? Why? When did we lose the psalms in favor of paraphrases and the latter in favor of uninspired hymns? During or as a result of the 1GA. 

Where did these folk learn this orientation to religious experience? I say they learned it from the so-called 1GA. There's a serious argument about what really happened. Don't dismiss it until you've read the lit I reference in the footnotes. That's why they're there. I realize that it presents a challenge to the accepted story but that's why the book took so long. I had to re-evaluate and re-think a lot of things.


----------



## Oecolampadius

R. Scott Clark said:


> I'm making an historical point that we often forget. If it is the case that printed bibles didn't exist before the late modern period (and that is the case) and if it is the case that for the history of redemption most people ONLY heard the Word read and taught, it cannot be the case that private bible reading is on an equal plane with the authorized public proclamation of it.
> 
> I'm not suggesting in any way that God's people do not have an obligation to read the bible now that we have them, in our own language, to hand but I do want us to be cautious not to invent a new means of grace that came into existence in the late medieval period. I think we're justly critical of Rome for doing just that!



I agree with your main point but I just want to ask you this following question: Wasn't Paul referring to written Scripture when he mentioned "sacred writings" to Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:16?

2 Timothy 3:16:


> and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.



Additional: Should we view Timothy's acquaintance with the sacred writings as mainly in connection with the practices that were being observed in the synagogue then or should this not include the private reading of Scripture also?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Enjoying this discussion. I look forward to considering your points regarding 1GA when I get the book.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I agree with your main point but I just want to ask you this following question: Wasn't Paul referring to written Scripture when he mentioned "sacred writings" to Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:16?


2 Timothy 3:16:


> and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.


[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that there were copies of the epistles copied and sent to the churches. As a minister Timothy would have had access to them but almost no one else would have owned a copy of a scroll (codices = books didn't become common for some time after that) of an apostolic epistle. Certainly people didn't have copies of the whole of Scripture to take whom for private reading. Until the printing press that just didn't even become possible except for the most wealthy of folk. Even after the printing press popular or mass ownership of books was rare until the technology was refined and popular literacy and the rise of the middle class increased demand.

-----Added 6/5/2009 at 07:20:42 EST-----

Reuben,

We know a little bit more about the history of printing and reading than we did 100 years ago. 

See my reply below.

Most people in the biblical history couldn't read. Widespread literacy is a modern phenomenon and one, judging the literacy rates, that appears to be fading.



py3ak said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people prior to the modern period never had private access to God's Word. They heard it. They didn't read it. It's salutary and important to take advantage of the benefits we have (easy access to printed and digital bibles!) but we can't anachronistically impute that access to the history of the church or to the history of redemption. Most Israelites couldn't even hear Moses when he spoke at Horeb let alone see him or read what he said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B.B. Warfield has an essay (the first one in the _Selected Shorter Writings_, v.1) called "The Bible the Book of Mankind". There he marshals an argument that would seem to indicate that your statement here is rather too sweeping. It describes some dark periods in church history, but it does not describe them all.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

R. Scott Clark said:


> Reuben,
> 
> We know a little bit more about the history of printing and reading than we did 100 years ago.
> 
> See my reply below.
> 
> Most people in the biblical history couldn't read. Widespread literacy is a modern phenomenon and one, judging the literacy rates, that appears to be fading.



But that doesn't actually overturn what Warfield asserts, as that children learned to join syllables from the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, or that 7-year old girls were expected to have started memorizing from the Psalms. Nor does it overturn the fact that Timothy did have access to the OT Scriptures from the time he was a child - and this in a home where his father was an unbeliever. 

It also ignores the fact that people who can't read, can memorize.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Reuben,

I think we are talking past each other.

Yes, people memorized God's Word. They heard it and they recited it and they memorized it. The Rabbis and others memorized the entirety of the Torah. It's likely that Paul had the entire Torah memorized.

I'm ONLY speaking to the fact that most laity lived in poverty. They had a subsistence level existence and did not, could not, have copies of Scripture in their homes. They couldn't read them. Of course they could memorize oral speech. That was common in the ancient world. That's how texts were transmitted. I affirm that. I wasn't speaking to that. What I'm speaking to is the widely held assumption that people have always had written bibles in their homes. It wasn't possible for most to afford copies of Scripture. These were made by hand and were relatively rare. 

I don't doubt that Timothy had access to written Scripture at some point (Paul commends him to the public reading of Scripture) but I don't know that the passage intends us to believe that Timothy grew up in a house with access to written texts of Scripture in the home. This seems to be a supposition more than a fact. Paul says,



> 2 Tim 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.



Paul does not say say that Timothy has always had access to a written text of Scripture. From what I know I guess it would have been highly unusual for a family to have a copy of the Hebrew text or the LXX. They would have heard in the synagogue and it would have been recited from memory at table and the like. No doubt about that.


----------



## py3ak

I can accept that - though I do recommend Warfield's article, and think his account does give the idea of a greater diffusion of the written word (inasmuch as it was the book used for teaching children to read) than your posts would _seem_ to allow.

However, the vital point is surely that people did have access to the word of God, and not only at the time of the public services. Just as I don't really care if someone listens to Alexander Scourby or reads for themselves, so it doesn't matter if someone read or recited from memory. And if people are able to access the word of God in private, it is their duty to do so constantly.


----------



## Archlute

> I realize that, for those who are not in touch with the academic literature on Edwards, some of what I wrote might be a little shocking. Before folk fly into a rage over my criticisms of some aspects of the 1GA (which was really the point of the chapter) they ought to read some of the lit for themselves.



Dr. Clark, why is it that academic literature seems to hold almost an uncritically examined weight in these discussions? I always felt that to be a problem with certain profs at WSC. There seemed to be a serious hesitancy to give positive affirmation to the reality that academics are not just bare academics in some detached, idealistic two-kingdom realm, doing their duty apart from presuppositions that negatively affect their scholarship in significant ways, but are indeed affected both in their motives and their conclusions in research by their unregenerate natures and rejection of Christ's kingdom. Dropping lines like the above almost makes it sound as if the academy's conclusions should always trump those of the church, and that our agenda should be affected and sidelined by their criticisms. It should be acknowledged that not everyone who is involved in the academic community surrounding the life and work of Edwards is a believer, and that their thoughts on the value of either of the Awakenings will be tainted by their anti-Christian/anti-supernatural positions. 





> I worry about the effect of a mythological, golden-age history of the 18th-century which bears little relation to the history as historians know it.



Again, you begin with a jab that sounds more like secular academia than anything else. Which historians? How do you prove that Murray's interpretations are any more mythological than the constructions given by secular or secularized academics and biographers?

This is addressed quite thoughtfully by David Wells in his recent _The Courage to be Protestant_ where he seems to be much more honest than many that _all historical writing_ is one part historical/archeological fact, and two (to twelve!) parts reconstruction, speculation, inference, and tentative conclusion. Why should Murray's scholarship (which I find to be well documented, and substantiated by numerous footnotes) be deemed "mythological" while what is put out by "the academy" at large, such as Zachary Hutchins' _Edwards and Eve: Finding Feminist Strains in the Great Awakening's Patriarch_ be seen as more credible? 

I think that is where the understanding of common grace has been uncritically used by some WSC profs to conveniently ignore and/or avoid the rampant unbelief that finds home in the broader academy and its scholarly output, whether that is in biblical studies or historical writings. I think that Van Til had a much better handle on the deeply entrenched unbelief of the non-Christian mind, and the antithesis that must necessarily be brought out in discussion than some 2k advocates are willing to accept.

I have never understood why you critique Murray as putting out false, golden-age style scholarship on the whole, when I find much more of a Christian take on Church history in his works than others. Are we then to say that as Christians we must be following a mythological golden-age view of reality regarding, say, the four Gospels when we find that "the scholarship of the academy" disagrees with our faith?

Please explain.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

We discussed this for an entire semester in the HT501 seminar. 

I'm sorry I sound like a secularist but the short story is that appeals to special providence do not a "Christian" interpretation of history or even good history make. Providence is ultimately responsible causally, in some sense, for all that happens. Now what? Now we're down to the hard work of reading texts in their original context and to archival work and the like.

Some of the stuff to which I refer the reader, in the footnotes, to which I commend the reader, is better than many of the accepted, popular "Christian" interpretations of history. 

You'll have to read the book and do the work I did if you want to challenge my interpretation. I can't accept a sweeping denunciation of all that work on theoretical basis of a wrong use of or view of common grace. I'm sorry soldier but that's just intellectual laziness. 

Now get down and give me fifty!

That's a joke.http://www.puritanboard.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


----------



## ChristianTrader

R. Scott Clark said:


> Adam,
> 
> We discussed this for an entire semester in the HT501 seminar.
> 
> I'm sorry I sound like a secularist but the short story is that appeals to special providence do not a "Christian" interpretation of history or even good history make. Providence is ultimately responsible causally, in some sense, for all that happens. Now what? Now we're down to the hard work of reading texts in their original context and to archival work and the like.
> 
> Some of the stuff to which I refer the reader, in the footnotes, to which I commend the reader, is better than many of the accepted, popular "Christian" interpretations of history.
> 
> You'll have to read the book and do the work I did if you want to challenge my interpretation. I can't accept a sweeping denunciation of all that work on theoretical basis of a wrong use of or view of common grace. I'm sorry soldier but that's just intellectual laziness.
> 
> Now get down and give me fifty!
> 
> That's a joke.http://www.puritanboard.com/images/icons/icon10.gif



Dr. Clark,
When you say appeal to special providence, are you saying that miracles etc cannot be appealed to justify a certain Christian position? Or are you saying that miracles/special providence can be appealed to but you think they are being appealed to in a wrong context? If it is the later, then when in the context proper?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I'm saying that it's poor theology to make selective appeals to providence to justify a historical claim. E.g. "God raised up Martin Luther." Well, yes, that's true! But God also raised up (in his providence) Ignatius of Loyola, did he not? 

As a matter of good history appeals to providence have limited value. Whether we side with Luther or Loyola is a matter of theology, not history.

The vocation of the historian is to tell the truth about the past as best he can. I don't check to see if the historians I'm reading are regenerate. I do ask whether they are doing good scholarship. E.g. I have no idea what Ned Landsman's theological views are but he's cracking good scholar of the 18th century. My tutor at St Anne's was probably a latitudinarian but he was very good scholar of Dutch Reformed orthodoxy in the 17th century. Heiko Oberman was pretty liberal in his theology (judging by side comments he made) but he was a brilliant scholar of the late middle ages and of the Reformation. Jill Raitt is an ex-Romanist nun with whose theology I have little sympathy but she's fine scholar of Beza and French Protestantism. I have no idea what Irena Backus' theology is but she's one of the best scholars writing today. 

What makes these folk good scholars? They did careful research into a particular question or period or person. They paid attention to primary sources and read them well and skillfully. They interacted with relevant secondary lit. Good historical scholarship explains what, in theological terms (WCF 5.2), "second causes" were involved in, e.g. the Thirty Years War. It is true that, relative to first causes, the war occurred in God's providence but history is concerned with second causes. 

The best historical explanation of the Thirty Years War will give the most comprehensive account of the intellectual, economic, social, political, and even geographic factors that led to the War and that cause it to continue. 

Going back to Adam's post for a moment I doubt very much that careful investigation and description of those causes constitutes infidelity to the faith on my part or that learning from the accounts of others who have studied the Thirty Years War, even if they are unbelievers, compromise with devilish unbelief. 

Too often appeals to providence amount to little more than special pleading.

History done properly is a descriptive enterprise. It doesn't tell folk what they ought to believe. It tells what was done, or said, by whom, when, where, and why. 

By contrast, theology is a prescriptive enterprise. It's my job as a historian to tell the truth about the past so that the bib studies guys and the theologians can do their job. If I don't do my job well they may operate from bad premises. E.g. I remember a fellow who used to teach that a certain famous Reformed theologian did not teach the pactum salutis. This was false but the conviction that this famous theologian didn't teach the PS influenced him in his own view of the PS and helped to perpetuate a false idea among his students concerning the extent to which the PS was adopted by Reformed theologians. That one mistake, repeated over time, helped to perpetuate a false family history and helped to create a self-identity that wasn't true.

The theologian is concerned with accounting for the theological significance of the meaning of events. The historian isn't. That's not his job. 

I understand that American Christians don't really care to be burdened with the past (that anti-historical bias is deeply ingrained in the American psyche-- that's part of why we exist, to get away from Europe and the past) but as Christians I don't think we can afford to be as influenced by the America anti-historical bias as we are. As I read Ps 78 we're commanded to remember the history of redemption and repeat it to our children. I'm not saying that non-canonical history is the same sort of history but it does suggest a slightly different attitude toward the past than the one we often carry.




ChristianTrader said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam,
> 
> We discussed this for an entire semester in the HT501 seminar.
> 
> I'm sorry I sound like a secularist but the short story is that appeals to special providence do not a "Christian" interpretation of history or even good history make. Providence is ultimately responsible causally, in some sense, for all that happens. Now what? Now we're down to the hard work of reading texts in their original context and to archival work and the like.
> 
> Some of the stuff to which I refer the reader, in the footnotes, to which I commend the reader, is better than many of the accepted, popular "Christian" interpretations of history.
> 
> You'll have to read the book and do the work I did if you want to challenge my interpretation. I can't accept a sweeping denunciation of all that work on theoretical basis of a wrong use of or view of common grace. I'm sorry soldier but that's just intellectual laziness.
> 
> Now get down and give me fifty!
> 
> That's a joke.http://www.puritanboard.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark,
> When you say appeal to special providence, are you saying that miracles etc cannot be appealed to justify a certain Christian position? Or are you saying that miracles/special providence can be appealed to but you think they are being appealed to in a wrong context? If it is the later, then when in the context proper?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


----------



## ChristianTrader

Dr. Clark,
Are you saying that a Historian does not to know the "final cause" in order to tell us "why", which you clearly say is part of his job? Or are you saying that the final cause of a situation does not have to dig down the the Theology/worldview?

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark

CT,

Every historian writes from some matrix of religious/philosophical commitments. I understand that there is no such thing as neutrality or brute facts. I understand that the only reason a non-Christian can interpret anything is by presupposing the existence of the God he denies. Plug "man of water..." and "sitting on father's lap" etc. That's all true. The non-Christian has to act as if what we confess is true. It's also true that we always have to be conscious that every historian is interpreting facts from some pov. 

Nevertheless, tendentious history becomes apparent over time. E.g. hard-core Marxists eventually lose credibility because their ideology overwhelms history. E.g. Some Marxists refuse a priori to deal with religious motivations. They "know' that all motives are economic. That's not credible history. The Marxists have made us pay closer attention to economics and social circumstances but good history is holistic and that includes accounting for religious and anti-religious motivations. 

At some level writing history is like paving a street. The Christian and the non-Christian both deal with paving materials and getting them spread out on the road. Either one paves the street well and throughly and evenly or one does not. The Christian and non-Christian interpret the meaning of the road etc differently but good paving is good paving. The Christian and the non-Christian do the same job from different motives but they're doing the same job.

If a historian is dealing with second causes (e.g. economics, biography, politics etc) then there isn't a great difference. Most history deals with second causes. 

Even as a Christian historian, I have to be restrained in what I say about first causes. After all, I can say with confidence that God sovereignly arranges all human affairs to his own glory but I don't know why the Tower fell at Siloam or a boy was born blind - except to say that God ordained it to his own glory. 

When it comes to dealing with second causes the Christian doesn't have a great advantage over the non-Christian. We know something about human motivation (sin and its manifestations) but again the Christian historian still has to document how that worked out. The observation that things fall out according to the divine decree and that people are sinful and that God is merciful are theological observations. They are historically true but history is more concerned with the details. 

The historian's job is to do history not theology.


----------



## mvdm

_The historian's job is to do history not theology. _

But weren't you attempting to do *both* theology and history in writing "Recovering the Reformed Confession{sic}"?


----------



## py3ak

I have a question about the secondary literature. I don't have any problem accepting that historians look at things in the divided sense, rather than the compound sense.

But here's what I want to know. Why does it seem that so many professional academics have advanced degrees in _missing the point_? You can think of Bultmann's criticism of the Gospel narratives, you can think of Halperin's insanity about Ezekiel's psychological problems, you can think of the agenda-driven literary criticism stemming from the feminist and LGBT camps if you want egregious examples. The point is, it's not at all difficult to find secondary literature that is pretentious, tendentious and valueless.

Why is reviewing "secondary literature" then seen as such a necessary attainment for true scholarship? Being a little bit Marxist here, can we entirely avoid the speculation that academics have a vested interest in promoting secondary literature, _because that is exactly what they produce_?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Mark,

You raise a good point. Yes. RRC is not pure history. I wear two hats. I'm a historian, but I'm also a pastor and I have a ministerial vocation as well as an academic vocation. RRC reflects both of those vocations. RRC wasn't written for the academic. It was written for the church. I drew on my research but I tried to weave historical analysis with biblical exegesis, theology, and pastoral instruction. I did the same thing in my contributions to _Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry_. My work in _Caspar Olevian_ and _Protestant Scholasticism_ otoh, is purely academic and purely historical. 

Obviously I think there is a place for the pastoral use for the fruit of academic work. I tried to do that in the essay on "Baptism and the Benefits" and in the more popular pamphlet on the same topic.

In the previous posts I was discussing the work of academic historians. E.g. when I did the piece on the Lutheran reception of Calvin, I didn't comment on Lutheran theology or analyze it. I did analyze the way 19th and 20th century Lutherans thought about and characterized Calvin. When I wrote on Luther's doctrine of justification, I didn't make theological arguments about whether he was right or wrong but I did make arguments about whether the New Finnish School interprets him correctly. Mostly I write intellectual history so I can't point to those sorts of examples but it's the same principle.

Even in a pastoral context, however, there remains a clear distinction between theology and history. A historian still has to make careful arguments about. This is what I appreciated so much about Harry Stout's analysis of Whitefield. There was a lot of screaming about it after he published it but even Dallimore (who alleged lots of errors) didn't actually (to my recollection) show that there _were_ errors. I appreciated the same qualities in Marsden's analysis of Edwards and Hart's analysis of Machen and Ned Landsman's work on the 18th century, among others.

-----Added 6/6/2009 at 01:22:14 EST-----

Reuben,

Why can't a street paver just ignore new materials when they come out? After all, haven't the old materials served us well enough? Why must he read about (and perhaps test) the latest materials and equipment? Why does a physician have to read those pesky medical journals? Why does a lawyer have to read the digests or the latest supreme court rulings? It's his job/vocation.

It's a good thing that good conservative scholars read the old German liberals and responded to them. We'll always be indebted to Vos' utter dismantling of the 1st and 2nd (and implicitly of the 3rd) so-called "Quest for the Historical Jesus." We all owe a debt to Machen for his analysis of the liberal account of the origin of Paul's religion --we'll be more thankful when NT Wright publishes his and we can draw upon Machen (again) and Seyoon Kim. We're thankful to Ned Stonehouse for his account of the differences between the synoptic gospels (about 60 years ahead of his time) and for the conservative analysis of Bultmann! I was a young college student when I was introduced to Bultmann and I'm glad that later I was able to find thoughtful analyses of his methodological biases and errors. 

The problem is often one of bad methods. This is something that Carl and I tried to address by putting together the volume on Protestant Scholasticism. A lot of the historical work done on PS had been plagued by bad methodology and those methodological problems had led to faulty conclusions. It took a great lot of reading to learn what the problems were and what exactly was leading folk to their conclusions. 



py3ak said:


> I have a question about the secondary literature. I don't have any problem accepting that historians look at things in the divided sense, rather than the compound sense.
> 
> But here's what I want to know. Why does it seem that so many professional academics have advanced degrees in _missing the point_? You can think of Bultmann's criticism of the Gospel narratives, you can think of Halperin's insanity about Ezekiel's psychological problems, you can think of the agenda-driven literary criticism stemming from the feminist and LGBT camps if you want egregious examples. The point is, it's not at all difficult to find secondary literature that is pretentious, tendentious and valueless.
> 
> Why is reviewing "secondary literature" then seen as such a necessary attainment for true scholarship? Being a little bit Marxist here, can we entirely avoid the speculation that academics have a vested interest in promoting secondary literature, _because that is exactly what they produce_?



ps. This has been interesting and useful (for me anyway) but I've got to beg off this discussion now. I've three large writing projects this summer and not much time so.....


----------



## py3ak

R. Scott Clark said:


> Reuben,
> 
> Why can't a street paver just ignore new materials when they come out? After all, haven't the old materials served us well enough? Why must he read about (and perhaps test) the latest materials and equipment? Why does a physician have to read those pesky medical journals? Why does a lawyer have to read the digests or the latest supreme court rulings? It's his job/vocation.
> 
> It's a good thing that good conservative scholars read the old German liberals and responded to them. We'll always be indebted to Vos' utter dismantling of the 1st and 2nd (and implicitly of the 3rd) so-called "Quest for the Historical Jesus." We all owe a debt to Machen for his analysis of the liberal account of the origin of Paul's religion --we'll be more thankful when NT Wright publishes his and we can draw upon Machen (again) and Seyoon Kim. We're thankful to Ned Stonehouse for his account of the differences between the synoptic gospels (about 60 years ahead of his time) and for the conservative analysis of Bultmann! I was a young college student when I was introduced to Bultmann and I'm glad that later I was able to find thoughtful analyses of his methodological biases and errors.
> 
> The problem is often one of bad methods. This is something that Carl and I tried to address by putting together the volume on Protestant Scholasticism. A lot of the historical work done on PS had been plagued by bad methodology and those methodological problems had led to faulty conclusions. It took a great lot of reading to learn what the problems were and what exactly was leading folk to their conclusions.
> 
> ps. This has been interesting and useful (for me anyway) but I've got to beg off this discussion now. I've three large writing projects this summer and not much time so.....



Thanks for your time interacting, in spite of your other requirements.

I'm not sure your examples really address the heart of my question: in essence I think your reply was twofold:

1. Secondary literature provides additional intellectual materials which we need.
2. Other people write bad secondary literature, so we have to write good secondary literature.

But the question actually was, _why is there so much bad secondary literature_, and _knowing that so much of it *is* bad why the big emphasis on reading it_?

Bad methodology is a good answer to the first part of the question - though it also raises the question of, "whence the bad methodology?" 

To draw from your illustration of the medical journal, would you as a doctor take time to read and test an article suggesting a new treatment for hemophilia if you knew the author thought that blood did not circulate? Would you trust his views on how to disseminate a chemical through the bloodstream if in fact he thought that there _were no bloodstream_?

If it's your job to read trash, I can sympathise. But the question is actually deeper. _How did the idea come about that wading through misunderstandings was a necessary requirement for understanding?_ It is that assumption (along with the Marxist explanation of its cause) that seems to me to lie behind a lot of the idea that you can't understand [random primary source in any field of the humanities] if you haven't read [random secondary literature in any field of the humanities]. *That*, and not the usefulness in freeing other people from errors of the labors of Vos and Machen, is what I find distasteful.


----------



## Archlute

R. Scott Clark said:


> Now get down and give me fifty!





After all the cake I ate last night you're probably only going to squeeze 35 out of me at best!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Okay, one more.

How would I know that R T Kendall used a poor method unless I read him? I couldn't know a priori that J B Torrance used a poor method until I read him. E.g. T F Torrance did reasonably good work on the fathers early in his career. I was skeptical of it but out of duty I read it any way. I was pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't have benefitted from his work had I just ruled it out a priori. That said, I doubt i would invest time now in anything written by people I know to be incompetent or amateur. I had to read through a fair bit of that stuff to learn that a good bit of sec lit is rubbish. What I read is largely a function of the project I'm writing. If I know the field well, I can be more selective because I generally who are the competent scholars/writers. If, however, I'm working on a new field (sub-field) then I will necessarily have to spend time figuring out who is and isn't competent. It does with the territory. That's why I always have my students work with primary sources first in order to have a baseline against which to judge the sec lit they're consulting. If one begins with sec lit confusion will ensue. That approach has helped me. E.g. Though virtually everyone says that Tertullian became a Montanist and divides his work into pre- and Montanist phases, I think G. Bray makes a really good case that we should doubt this approach. Why do I think he's made a good case? Because of the care and quality of his work, because he explains the primary texts better, because he gives a coherent account of how and when Tertullian came to be associated with the Montanists. 

As to the medical journal, it would depend on one's specialization. See the illus. above. In my speciality I take one approach to lit but in fields outside my specialty I take a more inductive approach. GPs refer folk to specialists and so do I. That's why we have multiple departments in the sem. I don't have to be an expert in semitics or Ephesus because I have colleagues who do that.

BTW, I've learned a fair bit from some of the more reasonable, responsible Marxists. Others I just ignore.

Whence errors? Well, humans are sinful. Some approaches are just inherently flawed. E.g. the psycho-historical or Freudian approach to history. It's useful to think about a subject's self-identity (Bruce Gordon does this and I tried to do it in re Olevian) but it's less helpful and far more subjectivist to use the Freudian scheme of childhood development to interpret whole epochs or even a biography. 

Methodological errors come from a variety of proximate sources. I see Christians appealing to the past as if there were golden ages because it suits their dogmatic agenda. Theologians often flatten out historical stories for the sake of their theological agenda. Hegelians and other idealists, ironically, use the past to justify their eschatology (which then justifies more or less ignoring the past or at least the details).

If you're suggesting that Christians have some inherent advantage over non-Christians in doing history I would reply that the available evidence doesn't really seem to support the conclusion. Yes, we should be able to give a superior account of reality, including the past, but we're sinners too and many Christians operate with a poor theology which then defeats whatever advantage they might have had. A sane, Reformed historian might be more sensitive to some questions and possibilities than others. E.g. I think that Prosper of Aquitaine was essentially teaching the free offer later in his career while Roman scholars, who lack that category, never think of it. I think my Van Tillian commitments help me understand Anselm's use of the ontological argument whereas others might miss the presuppositional aspect of the argument and his response to G. because they lack those categories that we get from CVT. Still, I have to justify my case by arguing from the circumstances, facts, texts etc and I might be wrong. It might be that the best reading of Anselm is not as a sort of proto-presuppositionalist. 

I tried to be careful to qualify the way in which I appealed to the sec lit in re JE. I signalled those with whom I agreed and those with whom I disagreed and where I am ambivalent (e.g. the lit on JE on justification). I do think that we, esp. we who are Van Tillians, have to be wary of anti-intellectualism and even laziness. I've seen/hear too many students try to use presuppositionalism as an excuse not to do the work. Here I think the 9th commandment has to control our presuppositonalism.



> But the question actually was, _why is there so much bad secondary literature_, and _knowing that so much of it *is* bad why the big emphasis on reading it_?
> 
> Bad methodology is a good answer to the first part of the question - though it also raises the question of, "whence the bad methodology?"
> 
> To draw from your illustration of the medical journal, would you as a doctor take time to read and test an article suggesting a new treatment for hemophilia if you knew the author thought that blood did not circulate? Would you trust his views on how to disseminate a chemical through the bloodstream if in fact he thought that there _were no bloodstream_?
> 
> If it's your job to read trash, I can sympathise. But the question is actually deeper. _How did the idea come about that wading through misunderstandings was a necessary requirement for understanding?_ It is that assumption (along with the Marxist explanation of its cause) that seems to me to lie behind a lot of the idea that you can't understand [random primary source in any field of the humanities] if you haven't read [random secondary literature in any field of the humanities]. *That*, and not the usefulness in freeing other people from errors of the labors of Vos and Machen, is what I find distasteful.



[/QUOTE]


----------



## Turtle

py3ak said:


> ...the vital point is surely that people did have access to the word of God, and not only at the time of the public services...



Agreed. Somehow those in Berea "searched the Scriptures daily" to see if Paul and Silas were fibbin'. 

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.


----------



## py3ak

*A Very Cheerful Reply*



R. Scott Clark said:


> Okay, one more.






R. Scott Clark said:


> If you're suggesting that Christians have some inherent advantage over non-Christians in doing history I would reply that the available evidence doesn't really seem to support the conclusion.


No, I didn't suggest that.



R. Scott Clark said:


> A sane, Reformed historian might be more sensitive to some questions and possibilities than others. E.g. I think that


Are you calling yourself sane?! 



R. Scott Clark said:


> I tried to be careful to qualify the way in which I appealed to the sec lit in re JE. I signalled those with whom I agreed and those with whom I disagreed and where I am ambivalent (e.g. the lit on JE on justification).


The vital question is if someone could read Edwards (including the Miscellanies) and form an accurate estimation, or if Edwards can _only_ be judged by a survey of the secondary literature.



R. Scott Clark said:


> I do think that we, esp. we who are Van Tillians, have to be wary of anti-intellectualism and even laziness. I've seen/hear too many students try to use presuppositionalism as an excuse not to do the work. Here I think the 9th commandment has to control our presuppositonalism.


I am not a Van Tillian. However I agree that appeals to Van Til don't justify bad scholarship. That said, sometimes it is the producers of secondary literature who are the lazy ones - too lazy to bother collecting the facts that contradict the inane theory they've come up with because their minds are too small to hold more than one idea at a time, or because their deadline was upon them. And I have sometimes thought that such secondary literature gains what currency it does, in part because Christians feel a need to be aware of it and refute it. But since you often have to buy a book in order to tear it apart, we actually wind up perpetuating (or at least contributing to the perpetuation of) the industry of bad secondary literature. Just think how nice it would have been if Schleiermacher's works had languished in the publisher's warehouse, utterly unmarketable. In other words, we may lack _sales resistance_ and _common sense_ as much as _good scholarship_.


----------



## Myshkin

Dr. Clark-

Modern Reformation - Articles

Curious if you have read T. David Gordon's article (linked above) in Modern Reformation? He seems to be attempting the same as you have in your book but in regards to other issues (i.e. Van Tillianism, BT vs. ST, politics/culture, education, and women in the military).

Would you agree with him that Van Tillianism is not a mark of reformed orthodoxy?
Through your writings in different venues I am aware of your positions on the other issues Gordon mentions, but how would you categorize _this_ issue in regards to the intent of your book?

Not to debate the merits of presupp./Van Tillianism, but historically this is a new position in the Reformed world and yet it is assumed to be Reformed orthodoxy (on apologetics).

I understand that you see some things (e.g. hymnody in worship) as an _expansion_ of what Reformed means and other things (e.g. requirement of 6-24 hr. days) as a _narrowing_ of what Reformed means. 

Seeing as it is a relatively recent "development", do you see this stance on Van Tillianism by some (many?) in the Reformed world to also be a case of narrowing "The Reformed Confession"? I realize that ultimately your arguments for a position being Reformed would come down to scriptural reasons and not "it is true because it is historical" but is it not part of your argument that something is not of "The Reformed Confession" if it is not historical practice?

I don't mean this as a challenge to you, I am just trying to reconcile some of my own thoughts. I hope my questions are not too simplistic in my understanding.

Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I have a lot of sympathy for T. David's arguments. I agree entirely that there are a lot distractions in our churches.

No, CVT was clear in his own lifetime that he did not want his views to be a mark of orthodoxy. He was a little unhappy that his name occurs in the OPC 'Black Book' Check John Muether's bio of CVT.

I think a classis/presbytery has every right to ask how a minister relates revelation and reason. If a minister adopts some approach to relating revelation and reason that contradicts the confession then that's a problem.

I haven't used the categories "expansion" and "narrowing," but I am concerned about setting proper boundaries. The book is about defining "Reformed" and setting boundaries.

No, I don't argue that if something is new it's inherently wrong. The book isn't reactionary. I argue for a new confession.

You should check out the book for yourself.

-----Added 6/7/2009 at 04:07:10 EST-----

To be clear, as I tried to indicate above, any careful analysis of JE on justification has to begin with primary sources, read in their historical, literary, and social context. Any reputable account of JE on justification, however, must account for the responsible sec lit on the matter. That lit contains proposed interpretations of texts. 

It's not an either or case but a "both...and" case. Primary lit takes precedence. The point of reading and dealing with good sec lit is to learn, to see if one's interpretation holds up, to see if others have seen something or thought of something that one has not seen, to see if someone has already attempted a given interpretation and how it fared.

Here's how I require students to research and write:
Westminster Seminary California clark

On the value of sec lit: Think of the interpretation of Reformed Orthodoxy. Before 1978 it was quite difficult to find anyone who was actually reading primary sources (as described above). There was nigh unto universal consensus that Reformed orthodoxy was rationalist, cold, soul-killing and the like. There were a few voices out there raising dissent (Bob Godfrey in his 1974 PhD diss, Jill Raitt on Beza's doctrine of the Supper) but not many. 

In '78 Richard Muller started publishing and over the next decade he more or less revolutionized the field by himself. When we put together the volume on Protestant Scholasticism it was a struggle to find authors to cover all the topics. Today that wouldn't be a problem. 

Still, despite the fact that the field is utterly changed since the mid-70s a remarkable number of scholars continue to write as if nothing has changed, as if R T Kendall or the Torrance approach is unchallenged or (more commonly) they nod toward Grand Rapids and then go on effectively to write as if nothing has changed.

Here's a concrete example of why responsible scholars need to keep up: the old arguments have been overturned one by one. The sources have been brought to light and entirely re-assessed, much to the profit of anyone who has academic or personal interest in the history of Reformed theology.



> The vital question is if someone could read Edwards (including the Miscellanies) and form an accurate estimation, or if Edwards can _only_ be judged by a survey of the secondary literature.


----------



## py3ak

So that sounds like though Dr. Muller has convinced a number, there are just as many continuing to write bad secondary literature, which was predominant before Dr. Muller came along. So _good_ secondary literature is still the minority.


----------



## Sebastian Heck

Joshua said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog
> 
> Yes, posting Sebastian's reply is self-serving--_mea culpa_--but he did a better job of responding than I did:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This review is* nothing *that gives me* no second thoughts* whatsoever about what I have read, appreciated and enjoyed in RRC. Keep up the good work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, does this mean that review is something that gives him second thoughts about what he has read?
Click to expand...


No, as _sanctus contextus_ will show you - this was simply a typo! Scratch the second negation ("no"): "This review is nothing that gives me second thoughts whatsoever about what I have read..."


----------



## ChristianTrader

py3ak said:


> So that sounds like though Dr. Muller has convinced a number, there are just as many continuing to write bad secondary literature, which was predominant before Dr. Muller came along. So _good_ secondary literature is still the minority.



My question is what is good vs. bad literature? That which I agree concerning?

CT


----------



## py3ak

I think to be good it has to be:

Stylish
Clear
Accurate
Transparent


----------



## mvdm

Here's my assessment of Clark's take on Edwards:


----------



## jogri17

I borrowed it from Toronto's theological library via ''prêt entre les bibliothèques'' (Inner library loan system in French) and I am reading it now. I intend to review it on my blog along with other books I am reading this summer. In betwen books I will comment on things going on in the Reformed Church of Québec.


----------



## mvdm

R. Scott Clark said:


> Thanks to the kind invitation of the editor, a response is forthcoming next month. Let's just say that the author does not recognize his own book in the review.



Clark's response is here:

Ordained Servant

Prof. Strange's rejoinder is here:

Ordained Servant


----------



## R. Scott Clark

A Review, a Response, a Rejoinder (and Surrejoinder)


----------



## DonP

R. Scott Clark said:


> Here's how I require students to research and write:
> Westminster Seminary California clark



I appreciated this and bookmarked it to refer to in my writing. We sure need logic to be taught to our youth in schools. 

*And *I have a Question. *Hopefully *you will answer. 

Just pushing you buttons above 

You said 



> Research is usually *inductive*, but a good paper is not. You (the researcher) must submit yourself to the facts as they are uncovered. You must discover what the author or text is saying (or what happened) and why. The thesis explains the "what" and the "why." The essays explains and defends the thesis and is thus deductive.



Would you clarify this a bit for me. Why would research usually be inductive if the resulting report is not? 
Are you saying poor research is inductive?

And is there ever a valid place or use of inductive reasoning in formal theology or in personally knowing God? 

It seems we could make errors in the use of either and we can misuse both. So is one really safer? 
Given our dependence on the work of the Spirit anyway, is one a more responsible approach? Or just a more clear presentation?

Thank you very much sorry slightly  But considering Ruben's desire to avoid reading lots of sec sources to establish a valid conclusion this came to my mind as well.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Don,

My point is that research is one thing and writing (reporting on that research) is another.

In earlier generations (mine being one of them) students were not always taught to express and clear thesis and to argue that case as it was, I guess, considered impolite (especially in the midwest where I was raised). 

I want students to research inductively but, once they have come to their conclusions, to state those conclusions in the form of a thesis and to argue that thesis clearly, concisely, and cogently.


----------



## DanMcCormack

R. Scott Clark said:


> I worry about the effect of a mythological, golden-age history of the 18th-century which bears little relation to the history as historians know it.



Bingo.

My squeamishness about the new Reformed stuff springs from uncritical hero-worship coupled with an "inside track" mentality.

The flaws and humanity of our forebears in Christ should serve to point us back to the Cross.


----------



## py3ak

DonP said:


> But considering Ruben's desire to avoid reading lots of sec sources to establish a valid conclusion this came to my mind as well.



I didn't say I wanted to avoid reading them. I raised some questions about the very poor quality evidenced in a lot of them, and wondered if this cast some doubt on their overall value.


----------



## mvdm

DanMcCormack said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worry about the effect of a mythological, golden-age history of the 18th-century which bears little relation to the history as historians know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise is the concern about the effect of "RRC's" deconstruction of a mythical Edwards that bears little relation to the man's theology as historians know it.
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

R. Scott Clark said:


> Don,
> 
> My point is that research is one thing and writing (reporting on that research) is another.
> 
> In earlier generations (mine being one of them) students were not always taught to express and clear thesis and to argue that case as it was, I guess, considered impolite (especially in the midwest where I was raised).
> 
> I want students to research inductively but, once they have come to their conclusions, to state those conclusions in the form of a thesis and to argue that thesis clearly, concisely, and cogently.



Do you find students, or most mature ministers to be able to be so objective as to not be inductive and stay totally deductive in the process? 

I suppose at least the practice of doing it and studying logic helps so they know the difference is useful. 

Sorry Ruben for over generalizing. I don't like reading sec. sources by authors I have already judged useless to me. 
If a man has a perverted view of things I do not trust him not to see through his sunglasses in all things. I would rather read solid men. So I thought I was agreeing with your questioning why the need to read some of these. 

We all may be guilty of this a little, and yet there is use in some areas even if we disagree in others, but some men, why bother unless it was specifically to reprove their work.


----------



## Reformed City Rockers

I read the long awaited rejoinder on the Ordained Servant. I have to admit as much as I love Alan Strange he is one of my personal favorites and I am so thankful for his work on a great many of things, I have to side with Clark and his response both in the OS and on his Heidleblog. I am glad for the interaction and disagreement of Dr. Strange and others though I disagree it is good to know what people’s concerns are. His (Clark’s) evaluation on Jonathan Edwards is dead on as well as his evaluation on Theonomy, Federal Vision and the rest of the Neo-Nomian crowd. I’m not trying to be a fan or a homer rooting for the home team but Dr. Clark’s book as well as other recent publications from WSC have put some sanity back into my life in thinking about God, Theology and the church all of it gospel related. I will also be picking up George Marsden’s book on Jonathan Edwards soon though I hear it is way different than the sanitized biography of Edwards by Ian Murray.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Mark,

You can also go after that radical Bavinck for his interpretation of Edwards.

Shane Lems provides this on the HB.



> "By his [Edwards'] metaphysical and ethical speculations he attempted to strengthen Calvinism but actually weakened it by the distinction between natural and moral impotence - a distinction that already occurs in John Cameron - and by a peculiar theory concerning freedom of the will, original sin, and virtue. Thus he became the father of the Edwardians, New Theology men, or New Lights as they are called, who, though they maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty and election, combined it with the rejection of original sin and the universality of the atonement, just as the theologians of Samur had done in France" (RD, I.201).
> 
> "...the denial by Jonathan Edwards of immediate imputation in the case of Adam and Christ had the effect of increasingly leading New England theology along the lines of Placaeus" (RD, III.534 - see also p 100 of vol III where similar statements are made).
> 
> Bavinck had "serious objections" to the Saumur school's and Placaeus' (and hence Edwards') view that pollution is anterior to guilt and flat out says it is not Reformed (RD, III.109).
> 
> Another interesting critique by Bavinck comes in III.122, where he wrote that Edward's attempt to defend moral impotence (against Taylor) was not helpful. "By his refusal to call this disinclination toward the good 'natural impotence,' he fostered a lot of misunderstanding and actually aided the cause of Pelagianism. The Reformed, therefore, consistently spoke of natural impotence."
> 
> It is too long/complex to quote here, but be sure to also read p.381 (bottom) in RD III., where Bavinck notes another frightening door that Edwards opened, so to speak, concerning the atonement and Christ's solidarity with all men.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> You can also go after that radical Bavinck for his interpretation of Edwards.
> 
> Shane Lems provides this on the HB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By his [Edwards'] metaphysical and ethical speculations he attempted to strengthen Calvinism but actually weakened it by the distinction between natural and moral impotence - a distinction that already occurs in John Cameron - and by a peculiar theory concerning freedom of the will, original sin, and virtue. Thus he became the father of the Edwardians, New Theology men, or New Lights as they are called, who, though they maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty and election, combined it with the rejection of original sin and the universality of the atonement, just as the theologians of Samur had done in France" (RD, I.201).
> 
> "...the denial by Jonathan Edwards of immediate imputation in the case of Adam and Christ had the effect of increasingly leading New England theology along the lines of Placaeus" (RD, III.534 - see also p 100 of vol III where similar statements are made).
> 
> Bavinck had "serious objections" to the Saumur school's and Placaeus' (and hence Edwards') view that pollution is anterior to guilt and flat out says it is not Reformed (RD, III.109).
> 
> Another interesting critique by Bavinck comes in III.122, where he wrote that Edward's attempt to defend moral impotence (against Taylor) was not helpful. "By his refusal to call this disinclination toward the good 'natural impotence,' he fostered a lot of misunderstanding and actually aided the cause of Pelagianism. The Reformed, therefore, consistently spoke of natural impotence."
> 
> It is too long/complex to quote here, but be sure to also read p.381 (bottom) in RD III., where Bavinck notes another frightening door that Edwards opened, so to speak, concerning the atonement and Christ's solidarity with all men.
Click to expand...


Dr. Clark,

I recently read Murray's _The Imputation of Adam's Sin_. He, at least, believed that Edwards did not deny the immediate imputation of Adam's Sin but acknowledged that his disciples read him that way. I'm, by no means, an Edwards scholar but I have read some things that he wrote that lead me to believe that he believed in the immediate imputation of Adam's Sin whatever other problems he might have had.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Rich,

We're discussing that on the HB right now. It's actually a pretty good discussion. If you follow the comment thread you'll see quotations from Hodge, Warfield, and Bavinck as well as discussion of Mr Murray's attempt to exculpate Edwards.

I don't think Mr Murray succeeded. The Old Princeton fellows and Bavinck were probably more accurate in their assessment of Edwards.


----------



## mvdm

R. Scott Clark said:


> Mark,
> 
> You can also go after that radical Bavinck for his interpretation of Edwards.
> 
> Shane Lems provides this on the HB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By his [Edwards'] metaphysical and ethical speculations he attempted to strengthen Calvinism but actually weakened it by the distinction between natural and moral impotence - a distinction that already occurs in John Cameron - and by a peculiar theory concerning freedom of the will, original sin, and virtue. Thus he became the father of the Edwardians, New Theology men, or New Lights as they are called, who, though they maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty and election, combined it with the rejection of original sin and the universality of the atonement, just as the theologians of Samur had done in France" (RD, I.201).
> 
> "...the denial by Jonathan Edwards of immediate imputation in the case of Adam and Christ had the effect of increasingly leading New England theology along the lines of Placaeus" (RD, III.534 - see also p 100 of vol III where similar statements are made).
> 
> Bavinck had "serious objections" to the Saumur school's and Placaeus' (and hence Edwards') view that pollution is anterior to guilt and flat out says it is not Reformed (RD, III.109).
> 
> Another interesting critique by Bavinck comes in III.122, where he wrote that Edward's attempt to defend moral impotence (against Taylor) was not helpful. "By his refusal to call this disinclination toward the good 'natural impotence,' he fostered a lot of misunderstanding and actually aided the cause of Pelagianism. The Reformed, therefore, consistently spoke of natural impotence."
> 
> It is too long/complex to quote here, but be sure to also read p.381 (bottom) in RD III., where Bavinck notes another frightening door that Edwards opened, so to speak, concerning the atonement and Christ's solidarity with all men.
Click to expand...


Scott, I'm not as easily distracted as your followers on the Heidelblog. As Prof. Strange indicated in his review, good men differ on Edwards, and certain areas of his theology warrant debate. Mediate/immediate imputation may be one such area based on conflicting language found in Edwards. But that is beside the point of my critique of your treatment of Edwards in "Recovering the Reformed Confession[sic]".

My critque is on your charge that Edwards was a subjectivist, separating religious experience from the means of grace, guilty of the so-called QIRE. My review easily demonstrated that was a facile charge. As I had said there, if your true target was Piper and "christian hedonism", you should have aimed within the reach of your weapons rather than trying to weave futile threads in an attempt to tie down the giant Edwards on THAT score.


----------

