Recovering the Reformed Confession - Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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}"?
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.

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.....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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]
 
...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
.
.
.
.
 
A Very Cheerful Reply

Okay, one more.
:)

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.

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?!

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
:scratch:

So, does this mean that review is something that gives him second thoughts about what he has read?

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..."
 
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
 
I think to be good it has to be:

Stylish
Clear
Accurate
Transparent
 
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.
 
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 :lol:

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

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top