As Gordon Clark observed long ago, if there is no univocal point of
contact between God’s knowledge and knowledge possible to man, and all
of God’s revelation is analogical, then it follows man could not even
know the univocal truth that all revelation is analogical. -- Sean Gerety
Lately Dr. R. Scott Clark has banned me from commenting on his blog because I came out on the side of the Scripturalists. A couple of years ago Sean Gerety, owner of the God's Hammer blog, wrote the following compelling critique of R. Scott Clark's view. There was a time when I gave R. Scott Clark the benefit of the doubt. However, after reading his many comments at the Heidelblog and after reading his book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, I concluded that R. S. Clark is a revisionist interpreter of the history of the Reformed faith and theology in general. One cannot take Clark's word for anything. It is always better to check the original sources rather than secondary sources, especially when dealing with revisionists.
Lately Dr. R. Scott Clark has banned me from commenting on his blog because I came out on the side of the Scripturalists. A couple of years ago Sean Gerety, owner of the God's Hammer blog, wrote the following compelling critique of R. Scott Clark's view. There was a time when I gave R. Scott Clark the benefit of the doubt. However, after reading his many comments at the Heidelblog and after reading his book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, I concluded that R. S. Clark is a revisionist interpreter of the history of the Reformed faith and theology in general. One cannot take Clark's word for anything. It is always better to check the original sources rather than secondary sources, especially when dealing with revisionists.
The Trinity Review printed Sean's critique and this is the lead in:
Click here to read the full Trinity Review article: The Trinity Foundation - Janus Alive and Well: Dr. R. Scott Clark and the Well-Meant Offer of the GospelDr. R. Scott Clark, a professor of theological and church history at Westminster Seminary California, is viewed by many as the standard bearer of Reformed confessionalism. Besides being a recognized opponent of the Federal Vision and New Perspectives theology, Clark is also a devoted follower of the late Cornelius Van Til, and, not surprisingly, is an unapologetic defender of logical paradox in Scripture. Along these lines Clark repeatedly challenged me to read his contribution to the festschrift for Robert Strimple, The Pattern of Sound Doctrine where he defends the so-called “well-meant” or “free offer” of the Gospel. Clark complained on his website, “do the opponents of the Free Offer ever read anything but their own in-house stuff?”(1) Well, I certainly do, but I was hard pressed to believe Clark could bring anything new to the table not already covered by men like John Murray or Cornelius Van Til, not to mention John Frame, David Bahnsen, David Byron, James Anderson, along with a whole host of other lesser defenders of biblical paradox.
Posts
6 comments:
Charlie, I fear you're flailing at the opponents of your own making... punching the wind, as it were. Why?? What are you trying to prove, trying to establish? You are pushing away from yourself those who are your most natural allies. Brother, reconsider, I pray, your path...
your friend in Christ
Jack, I'm afraid that liberals love to pretend to be Evangelicals and Reformed. But, as Gordon H. Clark rightly said, Evangelicals who have gone in the liberal direction only depart from one or two points of theological essentials while the blatant liberal forsakes many of them.
The view that true is two-fold is neo-orthodoxy, not the traditional Reformed view nor is it the biblical view. The idea that all of Scripture is analogical is purely neo-orthodox. The fact is if 2 + 2 = 4 is something different for God then there is no truth and we are left with only irrationalism and skepticism.
When the Bible says that Jesus is both God and man either that is the same truth God knows or it is merely a paradox.
And in regards to Arminianism and Open Theism, either those two theologies are heresies or they are not. There really is no room for compromise there.
Why does the PCA and the OPC ignore the Larger and Shorter Catechism when inviting people to church membership? It's because these churches are no longer Reformed but are in fact moving in the broad Evangelical direction. It's called "latitudinarianism."
Watering down the essentials of the Reformed faith as they are expressed in the Reformed standards leads to what we see at New Princeton, the PCUSA, and the once great bastion of Reformed theology, Fuller Seminary.
It won't be long before the demise of the PCA, which can't even convict a known Federal Visionist like Peter Leithart or Jeffrey Myers. And John Piper is another promoter of the New Perspective on Paul via his doctrine of "future vindication" and other such nonsense.
Thank God for the internet. Without it these dissimulators would go without being called for their departure from the faith.
I'm more concerned about my standing before God than my membership in an increasingly apostate denomination. I wouldn't support any congregation that sends funds to a denomination that ordains gays or women. The same can be said about any denomination that accepts Arminians as church members without their being catechized or required to subscribe to the Larger Catechism.
Sorry if that bothers you.
Salvation is not about church membership but what you believe and why. Jesus put it well:
And He spoke a parable to them: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39 NKJ)
I was amused in the Sunday school class yesterday. They are studying J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism and the departure of the OPC from the PCUS in 1924 and the founding of Westminster, Philadelphia. Liberalism--how terrible. But they neglected to mention that the PCA was not founded until 1970 and that issue was the ordination of women. So the PCA continued in a "liberal" denomination from 1924 to 1970 or so. It seems to me that the PCA is headed in the same direction and is not all that different from the PCUSA of today.
Charlie
The view that truth is two-fold, rather.
Frankly, when I read R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, I was appalled. His book reads like neo-orthodoxy rather than conservative theology. What's the point of recovering a confession if strict subscription isn't required? And what does "strict subscription" mean if "exceptions" are allowed? Answer: Nothing.
Recovering the Reformed Confession
With "natural allies" like the Van Tilians, who needs enemies?
If the Van Tilians are so concerned about being allies, why are they continually violating the 9th commandment in regards to the legacy of Gordon H. Clark and Carl F. H. Henry. Mike Horton was applauding Donald Bloesch, a known universalist and Barthian, while attacking Gordon H. Clark and Carl Henry as if they were rationalists and liberals.
When truth matters, it's worth disputing error and outright lies. The funny thing is that Horton only mentioned B. B. Warfield in passing because he knows that Warfield stood more on the side of propositional truth than with "paradox" and "mystery". Furthermore, Horton's "speech-act" theory is rationalistic and reads into the Bible a theory that is nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Maybe Horton was "prying into the secret being" of God by trying to explain how God speaks His "secret" decrees into actual existence?
If I'm flailing at falsehood, so be it:) Besides, I'm not the lone ranger here. Many others have critiqued both Westminster PA and CA on these issues. The article linked was printed in The Trinity Review as well.
Post a Comment