Review "Recovering the Reformed Confession"
- Thread starter Covenant Joel
- Start date
- Status
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks for posting it.
"What Clark really does in this book is to advocate a kind of Reformed theology and church life that appeals to him more than the more recent versions. But he has no authority, I think, and no good reason, to impose that vision on those of us who find it less attractive."
"What Clark really does in this book is to advocate a kind of Reformed theology and church life that appeals to him more than the more recent versions. But he has no authority, I think, and no good reason, to impose that vision on those of us who find it less attractive."
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
How interesting. What authority does Frame (or anyone else for that matter) have to ignore or to reinterpret the Confession?
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes. Then I asked a different question.
You might want to look at this thread on the same subject to get a feel for both sides of the debate:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/que...ditionalism-critical-review-clarks-rrc-55803/
If you read the link to Nick's review, to be fair, be sure to go down to the blog replies where Dr Clark takes issue with the charge that he sets personal piety against the public means of grace.
This is from the review:
a foot note:3.Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones are singled out as examples (pp. 278-82). The reviewer was surprised to see only only these men but also Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and John Frame dealt with in a negative light. Clark’s tone when discussing these men ranges from gently dismissive (Kuyper, Van Til) to openly hostile (Frame).
What you need to understand is that Frame was at WSC for years as a prof and has been openly very critical of WSC, and describes how great it was to get out. ( none of which, in a book introduction, brings any glory to God or is necessary for the public to know in my opinion) And Clark in turn appears to be hostile to Frame ( I didn't read the book, I am quoting Nick's review). There are two issues here- the facts, the doctrine, and the confessions- and then there is an ongoing relational conflict between Frame and Clark.
I love Frame's work, don't get me wrong, and I am far, far, closer to his perspective in general than I am to Clark. (You will see in Nicks review that Clark is mildly critical of Jonathan Edwards, Iain Murray, and Martyn Lloyd- Jones, all three of whom I am so grateful for and respect immensely.) But to read anything Frame wrote about RSC, and vice versa, is a big mistake. They are too hostile and critical of each other to be objective in my opinion. If you want to read reviews, don't pick people who are already at war, you will not get an objective review. To be fair to Dr Clark, read somebody other than Frame.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/que...ditionalism-critical-review-clarks-rrc-55803/
If you read the link to Nick's review, to be fair, be sure to go down to the blog replies where Dr Clark takes issue with the charge that he sets personal piety against the public means of grace.
This is from the review:
a foot note:3.Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones are singled out as examples (pp. 278-82). The reviewer was surprised to see only only these men but also Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and John Frame dealt with in a negative light. Clark’s tone when discussing these men ranges from gently dismissive (Kuyper, Van Til) to openly hostile (Frame).
What you need to understand is that Frame was at WSC for years as a prof and has been openly very critical of WSC, and describes how great it was to get out. ( none of which, in a book introduction, brings any glory to God or is necessary for the public to know in my opinion) And Clark in turn appears to be hostile to Frame ( I didn't read the book, I am quoting Nick's review). There are two issues here- the facts, the doctrine, and the confessions- and then there is an ongoing relational conflict between Frame and Clark.
I love Frame's work, don't get me wrong, and I am far, far, closer to his perspective in general than I am to Clark. (You will see in Nicks review that Clark is mildly critical of Jonathan Edwards, Iain Murray, and Martyn Lloyd- Jones, all three of whom I am so grateful for and respect immensely.) But to read anything Frame wrote about RSC, and vice versa, is a big mistake. They are too hostile and critical of each other to be objective in my opinion. If you want to read reviews, don't pick people who are already at war, you will not get an objective review. To be fair to Dr Clark, read somebody other than Frame.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am aware of the history of the situation, and I would imagine that you are right to some extent as to how it affects publications between the two.
I merely posted the review as I am quite interested in the issues brought up between the two. I'm not interested in a debate on the issues between them...I don't have the time nor the inclination. But I'm a little tired of the 1-sentence-I-just-dismissed-Frame's-whole-approach that I see often. So I posted the review to highlight some of the actual substantive issues as food for thought (whether one ultimately agrees more with Clark or Frame or is somewhere else on the issues).
I merely posted the review as I am quite interested in the issues brought up between the two. I'm not interested in a debate on the issues between them...I don't have the time nor the inclination. But I'm a little tired of the 1-sentence-I-just-dismissed-Frame's-whole-approach that I see often. So I posted the review to highlight some of the actual substantive issues as food for thought (whether one ultimately agrees more with Clark or Frame or is somewhere else on the issues).
Joel, I didn't mean to be critical of you or that you posted. I'll try to read the review when I get time. I already made up my mind a while back that since there are "camps" and I know I am in the Edwards-Murray- DML-J camp, I am not going to bother with those whose view of being confessional is this ( quote from review I linked):
To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.
To Clark, a high view of revival (and the direct, relational communion with God it entails) necessitates a low view of the church (especially of her confession, and of God’s appointed means of grace).
True revival brings great conviction to the lost, they get saved, and those in the church also are brought to greater zeal and sanctification and study of the word. The church grows, attention to the preaching grows, rebellion and deadness is subdued. I can't even process how somebody can be so negative about Iain Murray and Edwards. If Clark wants to get back to the confessions, it will take a great move of the Holy Spirit in revival to even get evangelicals interested in sound doctine. And given that the Fedreal Vision claims to be confessional, there are problems even with telling a new believer to find a confessional church. It is a mess out there. Please interceed for a true revival!
To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.
To Clark, a high view of revival (and the direct, relational communion with God it entails) necessitates a low view of the church (especially of her confession, and of God’s appointed means of grace).
True revival brings great conviction to the lost, they get saved, and those in the church also are brought to greater zeal and sanctification and study of the word. The church grows, attention to the preaching grows, rebellion and deadness is subdued. I can't even process how somebody can be so negative about Iain Murray and Edwards. If Clark wants to get back to the confessions, it will take a great move of the Holy Spirit in revival to even get evangelicals interested in sound doctine. And given that the Fedreal Vision claims to be confessional, there are problems even with telling a new believer to find a confessional church. It is a mess out there. Please interceed for a true revival!
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
No worries, I didn't take offense.
I just found the review interesting because Frame directly interacts with Clark (given that Clark directly critiques Frame in the book).
I just found the review interesting because Frame directly interacts with Clark (given that Clark directly critiques Frame in the book).
Jon Peters
Puritan Board Sophomore
Revival begins inside the church, through the means appointed by God: the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
This is an open forum where I asked a question.
Maybe.
"The opponents of the use of a confession of faith usually accuse its proponents of confessionalism, which is the tendency to give a confession of faith equal or higher authority than the Scriptures. This is generally a false charge, but in the case of R. Scott Clark, it seems sadly appropriate." source
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
While we have this treasure in such cracked and earthen vessels, we will continue to be distracted by the dogged predictability of personal issues intruding upon our best efforts at analysis. Given the things in print by Frame about Clark and Clark about Frame, it would probably be exceedingly difficult for either of them (or any other mortal) to transcend the personal affronts and fairly analyze the ideas with which they obviously disagree. Frame would be the last person I would consult for a review of a Clark book (and, actually, vice versa too).
I'm sure that there are no shortages of peer reviews of Dr. Clark's work besides the ongoing spat with Dr. Frame.
I'm sure that there are no shortages of peer reviews of Dr. Clark's work besides the ongoing spat with Dr. Frame.
I am a Reformed Baptist and would never look to Frame as one who I would consider as someone I could look to Biblically nor coffessionally. Especially after the Presybterians Together document. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/presbyterians-together-13697/
There are probably better things to link to concerning this issue but I lost a lot of respect for Frame a long time ago. He is out in la la land as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Good grief. I had no idea. Thanks for linking that. And this is one reason that confessionalism is so important. Not because confessions are on part with (or superior to) Scripture, but because confessions are considered to be faithful interpretations of Scripture (and are, or should be, unifying in nature). The old adage (not being applied to Frame!) that every heretic has his Scripture is true enough, and confessions help us ferret out the heretics.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
I actually read the review, and thought that it was very well done. It was personal, in the sense that Clark repeatedly mentioned Frame in RRC unfavorably, so there was no way that Frame could have avoided it being personal. This review seemed much more level-headed than his review of Horton. Frame definitely took time to address arguments and pointed out, I believe, a great number of shortcomings in RRC. The section on worship was not as good as the rest.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Charlie and Lynnie et al,
Have you read the book? How would you compare and contrast Clark's definition of "Reformed" with Frame's? What role does Frame think the confessions should have? What role does Clark think they should have?
What is Frame's definition of the RPW? What is Clark's? Which do the Reformed confessions actually teach?
What is Frame's approach to what Clark calls the "categorical distinction"? What is Clark's? Which is closer to the historic position of the Reformed tradition? Which is closer to Van Til's position?
Have you read the book? How would you compare and contrast Clark's definition of "Reformed" with Frame's? What role does Frame think the confessions should have? What role does Clark think they should have?
What is Frame's definition of the RPW? What is Clark's? Which do the Reformed confessions actually teach?
What is Frame's approach to what Clark calls the "categorical distinction"? What is Clark's? Which is closer to the historic position of the Reformed tradition? Which is closer to Van Til's position?
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just a couple of things:
1) Clark directly addresses Frame's views in his book. Thus it's not a random review of a Clark book by Frame, as much of what he does is address the criticisms of his view. It seems that by your point above, one should skip over the sections in Clark's book that deal with Frame (or not read it at all). But if one has read Clark's book, then it seems that giving Frame at least the chance to defend his positions is fair (whether or not one agrees with him).
2) I think if you read the actual review you will find, as Charlie said, that Frame is pretty balanced (in terms of the personal issues). It takes a different tone, in my opinion, than did his review of Horton's book a while back. (This is not to say that Frame is right or wrong about the actual issues.)
And just another comment in general about the thread:
Simply dismissing Frame, as many on the board seem wont to do, without clearly understanding his views or fully responding to him, is unlikely to be helpful to the Reformed community. If many here disagree with Frame's views on a number of things, fine. But surely he has some good things to say too (e.g., I find his work on apologetics quite helpful).
As I said when I started the thread, I'm not interested in debating the issues between Frame and Clark. I am too much in process on some of them to be able to really discuss them. I found the review interesting. If many of you are ticked off with Frame or don't have any interest in reading him, then don't read the review. But don't criticize the review without reading it, just as one shouldn't criticize Clark's book without reading it.
---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------
Dr. Clark,
Speaking for myself, I didn't post the review nor offer my comments in order to say that Dr. Frame was right in his review. I am in process on the issues, trying to wrestle through them carefully.
I respect the work you've done in these areas. I also respect much of what Dr. Frame has wrote and what I have learned taking classes from him. Thus I want to very carefully think through what both of you are saying.
Blessings.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the problem is that they both ignore or reinterpret the Confession when it fits them.
CT
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Hermonta,
Can you show me where I've re-interpreted the confession? I certainly don't mean to do and as I teach a course on the confessions each year it's pretty important to get it right (not to mention my ministerial vows and my vows a WSC prof not to re-interpret the confessions). Have you read RRC? If so, it would help me if you could point me to a specific place in the book that needs correction to bring it into conformity with the WCF.
Joel,
I understand. That's why I asked those questions. I think that it's easy enough to determine Frame's views and Clark's views and then to sit down with the confessions and to see who is actually closer (especially if H will help me!) to what the Reformed churches confess.
E.g. John thinks its permissible to substitute dramatic performance for the preaching of the Word. What does the WCF think about this?
John thinks that we can say that God is one person. Does the WCF agree?
John thinks that Norm Shepherd is within his rights to teach as he does on justification. Does the WCF agree?
Thanks
Can you show me where I've re-interpreted the confession? I certainly don't mean to do and as I teach a course on the confessions each year it's pretty important to get it right (not to mention my ministerial vows and my vows a WSC prof not to re-interpret the confessions). Have you read RRC? If so, it would help me if you could point me to a specific place in the book that needs correction to bring it into conformity with the WCF.
Joel,
I understand. That's why I asked those questions. I think that it's easy enough to determine Frame's views and Clark's views and then to sit down with the confessions and to see who is actually closer (especially if H will help me!) to what the Reformed churches confess.
E.g. John thinks its permissible to substitute dramatic performance for the preaching of the Word. What does the WCF think about this?
John thinks that we can say that God is one person. Does the WCF agree?
John thinks that Norm Shepherd is within his rights to teach as he does on justification. Does the WCF agree?
Thanks
This endorsement a few years ago persuaded me Dr. Frame was outside scriptural understanding and willing to tolerate things that are not biblical.
Here are a few other Posts by Dennis that are somewhat revealing..
He is outside of understanding in my opinion.
At the same time I know of someone who learned a great deal from him and Dr. Frame helped him out in Seminary. Especially when things were getting very academic and frustrating, Dr. Frame helped him remember what a Pastors heart was.
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
I thought it was a very well-written review by Frame. In my opinion, Clark and Frame represent two almost polar opposite approaches in defining "Reformed" and in the way we view and interact with the Confessions. While reading the review and thinking back on RRC, a balance between the views is probably best: I found myself agreeing with Frame on some issues and Clark on others. The purpose of the thread seems to be a discussion of the quality of the review, which I find to be quite high. Very interesting read...
This previous thread contains substantial discussion of the volume, as well as links to other reviews off-site.
Do you guys think this is a founded statement and accusation from Dr. Frame concerning Dr. Clark?
Or is this a correct Statement also?
Dr. Frames statement here....
... is just a vacillation of identity. It is allowing redefinition for the sake of identity crisis in my opinion. Maybe that is why he has been so accepting of the Federal Vision advocates and Norman Shepherd. The boundaries of doctrine have been crossed and found outside of the biblically defined confessions. But since the community no longer follows the original (according to Frame) it should be permissible to still be included in the tent of the confessionally reformed Churches. Why not just throw the confessions out and just become another PCUSA.
To me this statement sums up Dr. Frame...
I think Reformed is easily historically described and defined.
Dr. Frame is very accusatory of Dr. Clark and I find this statement by Dr. Frame to be very true of himself. His emotional attachment for those outside of the boundaries have caused him to redefine maybe, allow, and tolerate doctrinal changes that are outside of what Reformed is.
Anyways... That is just a small start.
Well I printed it out and to my shock it is 41 pages. Maybe this week if we get snowed in again.
By the way, Frame is NOT FV. This might help clarify that a bit:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2004SandlinForward.htm
FV is literally heretical so let's be careful what we say. And keep in mind the FVs will look you straight in the face and say they are confessional. So the waters are getting murky out there. Saying you are confessional doesn't mean what it used to.
By the way, Frame is NOT FV. This might help clarify that a bit:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2004SandlinForward.htm
FV is literally heretical so let's be careful what we say. And keep in mind the FVs will look you straight in the face and say they are confessional. So the waters are getting murky out there. Saying you are confessional doesn't mean what it used to.
The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
LOL! That's quite a tongue twister! Could you explain?
- Status
