Recovering the Reformed Confession? Calvin Against R. Scott Clark and Richard Muller

Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valor (namely, discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” in favor of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed.” --Richard Muller

Some time ago I wrote a book review of R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confession.  At that time I did not realize how duplicitous this title actually was.  I recently read the first volume of Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:  The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 1, 2nd edition. "Prolegomena to Theology". #1 (See footnote below).  I am citing and quoting from the Logos ebook edition.

Ironically, for all the bluster, R. Scott Clark is not promoting confessional Reformed theology at all.  What he is actually forcefully advocating is a post-reformation reinterpretation of the original confessional documents of the Protestant Reformation.  Richard Muller openly admits that he agrees with Amyraldianism, not the Reformed confessions.  Neither the Three Forms of Unity nor the Westminster Standards allow for any hypothetical atonement or for any alleged contradictions between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of God through irresistible grace.  Yet Muller tries to argue that the Helvetic Consensus Formula is trumped by latitudinarianism within the Reformed camp:

There were also bitter battles among the Reformed—over Cocceian theology, over the espousal of Cartesian principles, and over the various teachings of the Academy of Saumur, over the soteriology of Richard Baxter, and over various responses to the Socinian denial of an essential or ad intra divine attribute of punitive justice. On none of these issues, however, did the Reformed churches rupture into separate confessional bodies or identify a particular theologically defined group as beyond the bounds of the confessions, as had been the case at the Synod of Dort. Amyraut was, after all, exonerated by several national synods in France, and the debate over his “hypothetical universalism” did not lead to the charge of heterodoxy against others, like Davenant, Martinius, and Alsted, who had, both at Dort and afterward, maintained similar lines of argument concerning the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.104 The Westminster Confession was in fact written with this diversity in view, encompassing confessionally the variant Reformed views on the nature of the limitation of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect, just as it was written to be inclusive of the infra- and the supralapsarian views on predestination.105 Amyraut, moreover, arguably stood in agreement with intraconfessional adversaries like Turretin on such issues as the fundamental articles of the faith.106

Even when it was censured in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, the Salmurian theology was not identified as a heresy but as a problematic teaching that troubled the confessional orthodoxy of the church: the preface to the Formula specifically identifies the faculty of Saumur as “respected foreign brethren,” who stand on the same “foundation of faith” but whose recent teachings have become a matter of grave dispute.   . . .  [#2].

Notice that Muller does not argue whether or not the Amyraldian view is biblical or confessional.  He immediately pivots to whether or not the Reformed consensus was willing to tolerate a deviation from the Canons of Dort in order to preserve a united front against the Remonstrandts.  This is a capitulation to a downgrade in the interest of political concerns, not a question that was settled strictly on the issue of biblical propositions.  Earlier in this work, Muller betrays his own presuppositions which taint his objectivity on the matter.  He openly defies the Institutes of the Christian Religion and disagrees with Calvin.  In doing so, Muller is essentially disagreeing with the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards as well:

Indeed, any variation of doctrine incapable of being accommodated to Calvin’s 1559 Institutes can come to be viewed by the older scholarship as a deviation from the norm of Reformed theology—without any recognition of the fact that doctrinal variations and even highly polemical debates over doctrinal formulae that took place within the confessional boundaries all belonged to the broad stream of Reformed orthodoxy.

This approach, albeit characteristic of much twentieth-century historiography, does not accurately represent the seventeenth-century orthodox understanding (or, indeed, understandings) of “orthodoxy.” To define orthodoxy in terms of the more traditionalist line of Geneva, culminating in Turretin, or in terms of the Voetian theology at Utrecht prejudices the case from the start by creating subconfessional lines of demarcation for orthodoxy and by offering an anachronistic picture of a “rigid orthodoxy” operating within the narrow limits of a single school. The historical materials do not support the picture. Just as Calvin did not speak for the entire early Reformed tradition, so was Geneva less than the arbitrator of the Reformed tradition in the seventeenth century.  [#3].

Did you notice that Muller is appealing to historiography rather than the Reformed confessions or even Scripture?  That would be anathema to the latitudinarian views of Muller since his authority is his own interpretation of history rather than the final authority of Holy Scripture.  To do so would amount to what R. Scott Clark and Muller derisively call "biblicism."  Muller does so by linking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to the Socinian rationalism and the misuse of Scripture to justify denying the trinity and calling this "biblicism."  This is nothing more than prejudicial sophistry on the part of Muller and R. Scott Clark.   

It should also be pointed out that when Muller and R. Scott Clark refer to the term "Reformed", they are actually not affirming the traditional Reformed confessions at all.  Instead, they are appealing to the various post-reformation deviations from Scripture and the confessional standards!  Muller likes to water down the Bible and the confessional standards by appealing to the detractors instead of the biblical standards deduced from the Bible and summarized by the Westminster Standards and the Dutch Three Forms of Unity.  In case you do not know what those are, the Westminster Standards are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.  The Three Forms of Unity are the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.  But Muller openly admits this downgrade throughout the first volume of his work:

As for the terms “Calvinist” and “Calvinism,” I tend to avoid them as less than useful to the historical task. If, by “Calvinist,” one means a follower of Calvin who had nothing to say that was different from what Calvin said, then one would be hard put to find any Calvinists in the later sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. If by Calvinist, one means a later exponent of a theology standing within the confessional boundaries described by such documents as the Gallican Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism, then one will have the problem of accounting for the many ways in which such thinkers—notably, Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Bartholomaus Keckermann, William Perkins, Franciscus Junius, and Gulielmus Bucanus, just to name a few—differ from Calvin both doctrinally and methodologically. One might even be forced to pose Calvin against the Calvinists.3 Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valor (namely, discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” in favor of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed.”  [#4].

If I am "forced" to pose Calvin against the "Calvinists", then so be it.  I agree with Calvin's Institutes and with Calvin's two books against the Romanists--which amazingly also happen to be against the "Calvinists" that both Muller and R. Scott Clark agree with.  Calvin's two books are:  1.  The Eternal Predestination of God and 2.  The Secret Providence of God.  Both books are translated by Henry Cole.  I also recommend Henry Beveridge's translation of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.  This is where the latitudinarianism comes in.  Did you see that Muller is appealing to the multitude of names that he drops in his historiographical study instead of one single interpretation of the Calvinist position?  Following this line of thought, one could just as well take the Romanist view which amounts to a universalistic soteriology following Vatican II.

I personally do not like sophistry, duplicity, and outright misdirection.  This seems to violate the 9th commandment because it redefines terms that the lay reader is not familiar with in order to make them think that they are actually in agreement with the Bible, the Westminster Standards, and the Dutch Three Forms of Unity, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.  James White likes to call those who disagree with these reinterpretations "cage stage" Calvinists.  Scott Clark calls us biblicists, fundamentalists, rationalists, and other derogatory terms.  

One example of such misdirection is the Theocast channel on YouTube, which is run by two Baptists who claim to be "Reformed" while adamantly repudiating "Calvinism", which they refer to as those who advocate for a logical and fundamental interpretation of the Bible, the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.  The hosts of the Theocast channel are continually juxaposing the moral law and the Gospel as if the two are mutually contradictory instead of harmonious expositions of the whole counsel of God.  (Acts 20:27 NKJV).  The channel is openly anti-Calvinist while claiming to advocate for the "reformed perspective."

Even worse, these dissimulators fail to reveal that they are basing their theology on the historiography of Richard Muller and others who have an agenda that leads in a more latitudinarian and liberal direction.  Muller's view can legitimately be linked to neo-orthodoxy, since he openly rejects any logical or rational explanation of the Bible from an internally consistent theology which is axiomatic.

The short of it all is that R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, is not an unequivocal affirmation of the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is instead an affirmation of the latitudinarianism of Muller's analytical historiography.  Muller is affirming 18th to 20th century compromises that contradict Calvin and the objective standards of the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort.  Do not be fooled by these dissimulating liars.  I prefer to be castigated as a "hyper-Calvinist" along with Calvin, Turretin, the Dutch divines at Dort, and the Westminster divines.  I prefer to be ridiculed as a rationalist who affirms the propositional revelation in Holy Scripture.  I prefer to be called a biblicist and a fundamentalist rather than to compromise God's written word.  Richard Muller and other detractors from the original Calvinist Reformers do not speak for me.  I identify as a fundamentalist Calvinist, not a neo-Calvinist who falsely pits being Reformed against Calvin and Geneva and Turretin.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17-18 KJV)

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (Jn. 10:35 KJV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV)

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet. 1:21 KJV)

#1.  Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 1: Prolegomena to Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.

#2.  Ibid., pp. 76-77.

#3.  Ibid., p. 79.

#4.  Ibid., p. 30.

Religious Uncertainty: R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession

R. Scott Clark's false accusation of an illegitimate quest for religious certainty (QIRC) is nothing more than the positive assertion of a quest for an illegimate religious uncertainty (QIRU), ambiguity, relativism, subjectivism, and an outright denial of special revelation in the fully inspired Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. -- Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

A Critical Review: Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, by R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008). 362 pp.

Although I generally agree with Westminster Theological Seminary, California's theological outlook on the law/gospel distinction, the two kingdoms theology, and a solid commitment to a Reformed and confessional theology, I can only say that Scott Clark's book is confusing and ambiguous and even self-contradictory on several levels. What is particularly troubling is the tendency of Westminster California's professors to read Van Til's theology of analogy into every mention of the doctrine of Scripture. This is true of Mike Horton's new book, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). I will be reviewing Horton's book further in upcoming posts. (See Part One).

Be that as it may, I highly recommend Clark's book but not because I agree with his perspective or even his observations, recommendations or conclusions.  Moreover, I do agree mostly with his understanding of covenantal theology and two kingdoms theology drawn from Scripture. Clark is strongest when he does an historical survey of the regulative principle of worship as it existed just after the Reformation. His reporting of the various views on idolatry and the prescription of Scripture for worship is excellent regarding the Puritans and of the practices under John Calvin in Geneva. However, I would liked to have seen more about the sacrifices made by the Puritans and the English Reformers like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Bishop Hugh Latimer, and Bishop Nicholas Ridley, who all died under the reign of Bloody Mary or Mary Tudor. In particular, it is common knowledge that two Puritans, John Hooper and Peter Martyr Vermigli, were close advisors to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer during his reform of the Book of Common Prayer (1549-1552).

The strength of Clark's book is that he rightly points out the problems with an over-emphasis on pietism and an existentialist direct encounter with God, which basically amounts to mysticism. Particularly to the point is the end of Clark's book where he critically examines the departure of the vast majority of Reformed denominations and churches from the regulative principle of worship. His focus is the sabbath and the refusal of Reformed congregations and denominations to have two services on Sunday, the first being focused on the exegetical preaching from the Bible and the second being focusing on instruction from the Heidelberg Catechism so that God's people may understand the Reformed view of Scripture and doctrine. He advocates the exclusive singing of inspired psalms and hymns from the Old Testament and New Testament without music. According to the regulative principle of worship only that which is prescribed by Scripture is to be allowed for the liturgy and worship. For that reason, Clark advocates that no musical instruments be used in worship as well, despite the fact that the Psalter includes instructions for the use of musical instruments. This seems to be inconsistent on the part of Clark since he violates his own precept here. Musical instruments are prescribed in Scripture. (Cf. Nehemiah 12:36; Psalm 7:13; 68:25; 87:7; Psalm 150:4). It seems arbitrary on Clark's part to assign these instances and others to “circumstances” (pp. 230, 234, 239, 240, 263, 267-70, 290) in Scripture rather than to prescriptions, although I tend to agree with his view that uninspired songs and hymns should be avoided. (Pp. 233, 239, 255, 266, 268, 270, 290). The one place where I would disagree is the exclusion of Te Deum Laudamus and other ancient hymns of the church that were adapted by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer to the more biblical theology of the Reformation.

In fact, Clark even mentions the inspired songs used in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer without crediting the BCP with their use:

. . . If we keep in mind the principle that we may do only what we must do in public worship, then the argument for the use of uninspired songs cannot be said to have met that burden of proof.

Second, it has seemed to scholars of the New Testament that there are a number of songs in the New Testament. Among these are usually included the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), the Benedictus (Luke 1:68-79), and the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29-32). [Page 271].

Unfortunately, Clark confuses common prayer with “forms”. He does not seem to realize that even the regulative principle of worship is a “form”. His criticism of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is therefore misplaced:

The preface to the DPW [A Directory for Publique Prayer] says that there were three reasons for the creation of the Directory: First, as beneficial as the Book of Common Prayer (hereafter BCP) was to the Reformation, nearly a century later, the BCP had become a tool of oppression rather than liberation. The “prevailing Prelatic party in England under Archbishop Laud was bent on strict conformity, and on extending it to Scotland.” The Prelatic party was, in the words of the DPW, “urging the reading of all the prayers” (emphasis added) so that “the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies” in it had become an occasion of “much mischief.” As a result of the imposition of the BCP, Christians were being kept from the table and ministers deprived of their living. The de iure divino Anglicans (e.g., Richard Hooker and Adrian Saravia) “have labored to raise the estimation of it to such a height, as if there were no other worship, or way of worship of God.” The second reason is that the BCP tended to give aid and comfort to the Roman critics of the Reformation as validating the mass. Third, it had the unintended consequence of fostering “an idle and un-edifying ministry.” Rather than giving themselves to prayer, ministers were relying on the forms. The Directory laid claim on being a continuation of the work of the “first reformers,” of whom “ we are persuaded, that, were they now alive, they would join with us in this work. (Pp. 249-250).

R. S. Clark ignores several points in the history of the English Reformation here. First of all, Cranmer's Prayer Book was solidly Reformed and Calvinistic, as the 1595 Lambeth Articles and the 1615 Irish Articles of Bishop Ussher indicate. Laud, on the other hand, was a high church Arminian and arguably in cahoots with the Jesuits as Augustus Toplady would later insist. Cranmer's 42 Articles are solidly reformed, in fact so much so that Matthew Parker edited and softened their rhetoric. Laud's Prayer Book of 1637 was not the product of the Elizabethan restoration but rather of a departure from the English Reformation under Cranmer, although the book had only minor revisions.  The official prayer book is the 1662 BCP which is virtually identical to the 1552 BCP, which is the most reformed prayer book.

Like most modern Presbyterians Clark largely ignores the Calvinist character of the English Reformation. The genius of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was in adopting the medieval principle of lex orandi, lex credendi into the forms of common prayer in order to teach the Evangelical faith and justification by faith alone through the application of sola Scriptura and solid biblical proof texts quoted in the liturgy. But Scott Clark seems to think that ad hoc prayers and extemporaneous prayer is somehow preferable to solidly biblical written prayers. But what check do we have on the solipsistic emphasis of individual opinions over against a more confessional adherence to common prayer? After all, the Anglican Formularies are a confessional standard which teach doctrine. The 39 Articles of Religion interpret the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and both are confessional standards for the Church of England, along with the Homilies. There is some question as to the proper listing of the homilies in book one, however.

What is even more surprising, given the presupposition behind the RPW (regulative principle of worship), is Clark's totally ignoring the issue of the proper administration of the two Gospel sacraments. The RPW advocates that nothing should be done which is not positively asserted in the text of Scripture. Therefore, the use of fermented wine and the use of the common cup and unleavened bread in communion should have been discussed. But only the issue of leavened and unleavened “commonly used bread” is mentioned (p. 236). The Bible explicitly calls for the use of wine and the common cup in the administration of the Lord's supper. This is demonstrated in the Westminster Confession as well:

The Lord Jesus hath, in his ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break bread, to take the cup and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. (WCF 29:3) (Cf. Matthew 26:26, 27, 28; Mark 14:22, 23, 24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23, 24, 25, 26; WSC 96).

The use of grape juice is a modern innovation subsequent to Prohibition and was never the practice of the Reformed churches prior to that. I would also contend that the use of the common cup was the common practice of Reformed churches before modern times. For some reason Clark never mentions these issues, although he is a professor of historical theology. It would seem from a preliminary examination that Clark is highly selective in what he considers the historical practice and confessional view of the Reformed denominations.

The most troublesome thesis of Clark's book, however, is his assertion that Van Til's theology of analogy of Scripture is virtually identical to that of the classical Reformed theologians who advocated the creature/Creator distinction and the archetypal/ectypal distinction. Clark fails to prove his case that this is so. Basically, he simply makes an a fortiori assertion and expects his readers to believe secondhand sources rather than proving his case from the original sources. My response is that Clark is welcome to his opinion but reading Van Tilian theology into the Reformation is as revisionist as Karl Barth's claim to be Reformed.

Especially problematic with the Van Tilian view of Scripture is the contention that Scripture is not univocally the very word of God. The practical result of this de-emphasis of Scripture as the verbal-plenary and inspired word is that inerrancy and infallibility are practically forgotten. Doctrine is downplayed in favor of a mystical emphasis on the sacraments as means of grace to the point that propositional truth claims are lost in the mire of paradox and irrationalism.

For R. S. Clark only by analogy and not by logic is there any revelation from God:

. . . even those in the Reformed confessional tradition who rejected the modernist translation project have also wrestled with the proper way to do theology after modernity. Some confessionalists carried on the classic approach to theology, but we have often seemed to forget gradually our own grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Confessional Reformed theology, however, works with some basic beliefs about the nature of relations between God and his creation, beliefs that are derived from Scripture and shape theological method. Chief among these is the notion that God is the “beginning of being” (principium essendi) and, as such, the “beginning of knowing” (principium cognoscendi). A corollary to this doctrine is the notion that human knowledge of God is analogical. (P. 123).

For R. S. Clark the divine image of God in man is not the intellect or the will or even the human nature or soul, but it is merely an analogical relationship. However, the Bible seems to indicate that the divine image and likeness has to do with the revealed attributes of God (John 4:24). That is, God is a sentient, moral, intellectual being who is an actual personal God revealed as three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 13:14). However limited our understanding of God's nature and being, we do have real knowledge of God as He reveals Himself in the special revelation of Holy Scripture and the very words of God. As we read Scripture we can know precisely what God thinks on certain issues of theology. The Bible does make claims to absolute truth in matters of faith, morality, and dogmatic doctrine in the form of a rational revelation in Holy Scripture.  If there is any error the error lies with the sinful creature who cannot always understand what is clearly revealed due to the noetic effects of sin (2 Peter 3:15-16). Scripture itself is plain and sufficient so that even a child can understand the Gospel and be saved, even if reading only the Old Testament Scriptures! (2 Timothy 3:15). The Reformed position is called the perspecuity of Scripture, not the paradox of Scripture!  Why Van Tilians insist that Scripture is not God's very Word but only analogous to God's thoughts and words is a mystery. They pretend to disagree with the neo-orthodox view but in the end agree with it. If the incomprehensibility of God extends even to the special revelation of Holy Scripture such that it is not univocally God's word then there is no revelation at all. What is left is mere mystery and paradox and equivocation. This is why you do not see the Van Tilians talk much about the verbal plenary inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. It is because they do not really believe it is possible for God to reveal Himself in every single word of Scripture. For them revelation is merely historical events with vague concessions to the propositions attached to the events.  The "concepts" of Scripture are inspired and exactly what these concepts are is vague for the Van Tilian, because they only approximate what God wants us to know rather than being univocally exactly what God reveals to us on the human level.  For the Scripturalist, on the other hand, what we know is what God knows, even if what we know is only a single proposition and not an exhaustive knowledge of God's being or nature.

Although it is true that the Old Testament speaks in terms of typology and foreshadows of the coming of Christ, it is not true that the cross is merely a symbol or a type or an analogy. The cross is not simply an event. The cross is in particular a propositional doctrine that asserts particular dogmatic doctrines that are essential for saving faith. Basically, the doctrine of the cross is loaded with theological propositions such that to explain and teach them all would take many years of expositional preaching and teaching. The idea that everything God says in the Bible is merely a type, a metaphor, or an analogy is a misrepresentation of the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  In fact, R. S. Clark's view opens the door to modernism, irrationalism, and doctrinal revisionism. Moreover, the various genres of Scripture show clearly that the Bible is not a book of metaphors and analogies but contains a variety of genres of literature, including gospel, wisdom, poetry, apocalyptic, parable, historical narrative, didactic, and doctrinal materials. All of these genres, however, have behind them propositional teaching that can be understood with the mind and the intellect. In turn, assent to these doctrines, or believing them, is essential to saving faith. There is no need for a mystical encounter with some gnostic spoken word or a magical emphasis on word and sacrament. The mystical union with Christ is based on faith or believing the intellectual content of the doctrines of the Bible. Without understanding the propositional truth claims made by the Bible it is impossible to know them or assent to them or believe them. Faith is just that simple.  To know the information of the Bible and understand it makes it possible to believe that information and assent to the content of that message in saving faith.  The Van Tilian theology, on the other hand, has more in common with existentialist categories which make revelation impossible, ambiguous, and mystical. 
 

Clark's book is a misnomer because he rejects the very propositional truth claims of Scripture which are systematically summarized in the Reformed confessions. In fact, along with the modernists he suggests simply writing a new confessional standard that deals with the postmodern situation—as if truth changes with culture? If that is so, then we should probably reject the Bible as well, since it is virtually a premodern book and out of touch with modern sensibilities.

While I agree with R. S. Clark's assessment of the first and second Great Awakenings and even of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield's wrong emphasis on experience and the so-called “quest for illegitimate religious experience” (QIRE), it seems to me that R. Scott Clark's view of propositional truth as the “quest for illegitimate religious certainty” (QIRC) is nothing more than an attack on Scripture itself.  Instead, Clark affirms skepticism.  His view is an affirmation of an illegimate religious uncertainty (QIRU), ambiguity, relativism, subjectivism, and an outright denial of special revelation in the fully inspired Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. Being that R. Scott Clark came from a Socinian background, it should be no surprise that he leans toward neo-orthodoxy and a bifurcation of truth into relative obscurity.

Charlie J. Ray

A Note to My Readers

I have been reading several books over the past few months, include Cornelius Van Til's critique of Karl Barth and a couple of volumes from the works of Gordon H. Clark. I plan to do a review of those books soon.

I have also planned to do a review of Alister McGrath's book on the King James Bible and how that relates to the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These two fine English works have had an impact well beyond England to the rest of the world even down to the present time.

In addition, I just received in the mail a copy of Recovering the Reformed Confession, R. Scott Clark, and Mike Horton's new systematic theology. I am planning to review both of those works as well. Clark's book was written in 2008 but is just as relevant today as when it was written. This is particularly true for Anglicans who are concerned to reform the Anglican Communion in line with the original vision of English reformers like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and those who followed after. The Parker Society is an excellent resource for such studies.

At this point it looks as if those of us in the sideline denominations, as R. Scott Clark put it so eloquently, have little to no influence in the mainline and borderline Reformed denominations. As bad as the situation looks in the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations the situation is even worse in the Anglican Communion. Anglo-Catholicism rather than Evangelical and Reformed theology predominates with few exceptions--perhaps the Church Society in England and the Sydney Anglicans of Australia remain vigilant against the encroachment of liberalism and Tractarianism--but over all the situation looks bleak. The Global South is probably more Evangelical than Tractarian but even there the encroachment of Anglo-Papist theology has made major inroads.

The future of the Gospel depends on the sovereignty of God first and foremost. Be that as it may, we as Reformed believers are called to teach and preach the doctrines of grace and to reform our congregations and denominations according to the precepts and doctrines of God's Word. God alone is able to bring success to our efforts since He is sovereign over all. (Psalm 115:3).