Review "Recovering the Reformed Confession"

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

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

Rev. Winzer,

Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.
 
The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.

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

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

Let's look at RSC's use of the Bible. Take some of the things which he outlaws with a four word response -- QIRC. Now, some of these things may or may not be illegitimate, but the fact is they are considered legitimate because of a fundamental belief in the supreme authority of the Bible. RSC, however, undercuts the appeal to the authority of the Bible by referring to what he considers the tradition to have already settled, even though some of these QIRCs have in fact been a source of discussion within the tradition itself. In other words,, there is no care to address the biblical basis of the tradition.
 
Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.

No, it's not the individual issues themselves, but how they are handled. With you, I believe the Bible teaches 24/7. But I believe that because of my biblicism, that is, belief in the authority and infallibility of the Bible on whatever matter the Bible addresses. RSC undercuts this appeal by reducing the scope of biblical authority. This minimising of the Bible's authority is the basic problem.
 
Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.

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

I was just using the creation doctrine as an example. Thanks Rev. Winzer.
 
Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.

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

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

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

Would you be so kind as to explain what we mean by these terms?
 
armourbearer
I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.

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

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

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

From my POV, the polarisation of these two concepts will lead to a distortion in method if one were to gain the ascendancy over the other.
 
For what it's worth, I provide a discussion of biblicism in RRC so I don't want to repeat that here. I don't disagree with Matthew that we need to read Scripture and confession with historical consciousness but I'm not sure that's properly called "historicism" or at least it's not a complete definition. The Oxford American says offers these two senses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the reformed doctrine of the Sabbath is built upon it. WCF 21:7, "so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath."
 
The American Presbyterian churches have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation as the only understanding of "in the space of 6 days."
Not unlike how they haven't received the unaccompanied singing of Psalms. Tongue in cheek aside, I am not clear on your meaning here - are you saying that because the American Presbyterian churches have done so, regarding the 6/24 issue, that it somehow validates that particular position?
 
armourbearer
Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.

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

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

How ought we to read Scripture? Is there a better term than "historicism?"
 
armourbearer
Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.

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

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

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

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

Maybe that was true in BB Warfield's day. In my admittedly very limited exposure though, the tolerance for theistic evolution and billions of years old earth positions seems to accompany a liberal slant. Not necessarily regarding say justification, but certainly with male leadership and the sabbath, and with how you spend your money (perhaps not central to the confessions, but certainly central in the NT).
 
Some have been fighting on both fronts.:) Having worked on both the question of the intent of WCF 4.1 on creation in six literal days (for David Hall's work for the PCA a decade or so ago) and 21.5 on psalmody (more recently for The Confessional Presbyterian journal) I think it is clear the Westminster Assembly of divines intended to state what the doctrinal belief/practice of the three kingdoms should be regarding those two things (literal creation week and singing of the 150 Psalms). As for the future, they obviously answered that by acknowledging councils may err (31.4). Folks can disagree on the relative weight of each of these matters in the scheme of confessionalism; but as far as the intent of the Assembly for the church's belief and practice at that time, I believe there is really little reason to question what that was. My big :2cents: for what it is worth.:)

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

Dr. Clark,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Dr. Clark,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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