KERUX Review of "THe Law is Not of Faith" Now Available Free Online

Status
Not open for further replies.

R. Scott Clark

Puritan Board Senior
Part 1 of a five-part response begins here. Each of the posts are linked in succession.

I too want to encourage folk to read the book for themselves. This review would never be published in a real journal where the authors had to defend themselves from criticism.

That said, I'm glad the review appeared if only to expose the silliness of the arguments it presents. Any rational person who actually reads the book and then the review, even if he doesn't agree with the thesis of the book, will see that the review is quite out of touch with reality and that's putting it mildly. It make's John Frame's review of Mike Horton's Christless Christianity seem sweetly reasonable.

I don't think that it's too strong to say that If you haven't read the book you should not be commenting on it or disparaging it (see below). You can get it from The Bookstore at WSC for $14.29 + 5.00 shipping

You may also want to listen to this interview with the editors (and who also contributed). They anticipated and responded to many of the allegations made in the review.

http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/11.15.09TLNOF.mp3


The WLC teaches:

Question 144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things: Whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requires; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of: Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Are you claiming I have not read the work Dr. Clark?

You of course should always read a book before the review. That only makes sense. However I will maintain that your continued derogatory tone and calling the authors of the KERUX work "silly" and "irrational" further even claiming they breach the 9th Commandment is not only not very professional but not to be the way to win people to your side Dr. Clark.

As you can see here I commend people to read the work first before reading the review.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Are you claiming I have not read the work Dr. Clark?

Ben... he never said anything about you reading the work. He was merely suggesting the obvious. When you posted the link to the review you simply implied that it should be read. He was stating as is obvious that you should read the book that is reviewed before reading a critical review such as this one. That's all. He said not a word about you, nor could one ever properly infer from what he posted that he thinks you didn't, or accuses you of such.

You of course should always read a book before the review. That only makes sense. However I will maintain that your continued derogatory tone and calling the authors of the KERUX work "silly" and "irrational" further even claiming they breach the 9th Commandment is not only not very professional but not to be the way to win people to your side Dr. Clark.

You also should read carefully what Dr. Clark said. He never called the authors silly, nor did he call them irrational. He leveled that complaint of silliness at the review, and said that a rational person reading both the book and the review will see its problems... and I frankly agree wholeheartedly with that critique. The review is unfortunate, and in many places not much more than a semi-public excoriation of individuals, and is riddled with misrepresentations and clear misunderstandings. It lacks a great deal in terms of professionalism and appropriate tone, if it is to be judged a professional "review". This is all Dr. Clark was saying. You have misrepresented what he has said.

But.... let the people judge for themselves.

This thread will not last very long.
 

R. Scott Clark

Puritan Board Senior
BP,

I don't think anything I wrote implied anything about you.

I'm just reminding everyone of their duty according to the law of God and giving them an opportunity to hear the whole story before they come to conclusions.

I don't repent of anything I said in the responses. Regardless of the material issues, as a formal matter, this was perhaps the most inadequate, unprofessional review I've ever read. It was shockingly bad. As a matter of principle, when I mark essays, I give extra latitude when I mark essays with which I disagree personally. Nevertheless, were such a paper presented to me it would fail utterly.

If they wanted to be persuasive, the should first have given a scrupulously fair account of what the book actually says. They should then account for the strengths of the book and then they should have offered measured, careful, thoughtful criticisms of the book and its positions.

As it is they "open up" on the book at the very outset with outrageous distortions and misrepresentations and the review only goes downhill from there.

I must say it is disappointing to see members of this board promoting this review and encouraging its dissemination.
 

Jon Peters

Puritan Board Sophomore
Dr. Clark,

Is your review of the review going to stop at part 5? Having read the book and the review, I was looking forward to your continued review of the review.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top