Considering the Reformed Confession Part 1

I’ve begun reading R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession after someone recommended it to me.  I will confess that I am leery as I begin to open the pages.  While confessionally in agreement with the folks from Westminster West, I find I am not in agreement practically or theoretically.  In other words, we seem to differ on how to apply the theology we hold (mostly) in common.

But, I will attempt to give a fair reading to the book.  I hope I will not be unnecessarily critical.  I hope to remember what I wrote on a post-it note some years ago-

Discernment is recognizing both what is true and what is false.

Therefore, I will attempt to affirm that which is true as well as reject that which is false.  Or at least responding to that with which I disagree (since I am not the ultimate authority on what is true).

Clark begins with identifying the mainline, borderline and sideline denominations.  I am not sure why he calls some “sideline” but that’s not important now.  We are familiar with the mainline Reformed denominations (the PCUSA, RCA & UCC) which have largely squandered their theological heritage.  While there are surely some faithful congregations, as a whole they would appear to have become apostate as they begin denying essential orthodox doctrines.

He identifies the borderline denominations as the CRC and the EPC.  He (this was written in 2008, to be fair) identifies the CRC as moving toward the mainline and the EPC to be moving toward the sideline.  With a large number of former PCUSA churches entering the EPC since that time, I think they are shifting back to the mainline.  The recent approval of female pastors would be a case in point.

Clark right points out the confusion as to what “Reformed” actually means.  It now means nearly anything.  Some use it so narrowly as to identify their position on creation, law or music.  There is a great variety of practice among those churches taking the name Reformed.  There would also appear to be a great variety of theology among them.  I suspect he would disagree with me, but I think our theological system should be the same (therefore preferring the older term Particular Baptists to Reformed Baptists), but there is no need for uniformity of practice (which is what I am reading, fairly or unfairly, between the lines).

“It is the argument of this book that the Reformed confession is the only reasonable basis for a stable definition of the Reformed theology, piety and practice.”

I have no qualms with that.

He refers to Phillip Schaff’s (he of the 8 volume History of the Christian Church) inaugural address.  There he identifies rationalism and subjectivism as the 2 great diseases that threaten to kill the church, including the Reformed Heritage.

Rationalism results in the question to know all as God knows it.  They want to be right, to have absolute certainty  on matters about which Scripture is less than clear.  They do not distinguish between essential matters and matters for the well-being of the church.  All become equally important and you must toe the line.  This group would be the TRs (truly Reformed or thoroughly Reformed).  If you’ve had a bad experience with a Reformed person, it was probably one of these.

Subjectivism (or sectarianism) is the pursuit of the immediate experience of God apart from the appointed means of grace.  Where I suspect Clark and I may differ is the number of appointed means of grace.  But maybe I’m wrong.  Either way, these people place their emphasis on the emotional, the experiential.  They fail to see that Scripture guides our spiritual experience lest we have a counterfeit spiritual experience.

Clark notes how a growing number of younger people are beginning to embrace more traditional forms of worship.  The modernistic experiment of the boomers is insufficient for them.

I’m glad more people want more meaningful worship.  But lets not confuse the externals for the substance.  He mentions robes as a return to form for Reformed people.  There is nothing wrong with robes, but Scripture does not mandate them- only human tradition does.  If that is part of what he means by regaining our heritage, I would say he’s missing the boat.

Clark  seems to use a broader definition than Paul does in his positive statements.  Those passages refer to moral issues and practices.   The Reformers were not afraid of the teaching of the early Fathers and other prominent theologians/churchmen.  They affirmed that use of tradition, under the authority of Scripture.  Their use of tradition was to learn from the teachers of the past instead of thinking they need to recreate the theological wheel each generation.  But they did not want to merely mimic what the earlier generations had done.  I am agreeing with his confessional understanding but disagreeing with his application which goes beyond the Confession.  Or at least his illustration does.

He does lay out some important points here.  There is often a knee-jerk against tradition among evangelicals.  Some of that has kept into Reformed churches, and those who use the word in the more limited sense of Calvinistic soteriology.  We seek to understand the Scriptures better by also examining what those before us have thought it means.

The point is that the mainline denominations have forsaken their Confessions of faith.  They pay lip service to the Confessions for ordination, but don’t teach them or submit to them.  They are not used to answer questions facing their congregations and denominations.  Since they first rejected the doctrines regarding Scripture, even that is suspect and not authoritative.

The borderline denominations are moving in that same direction.  They are beginning to diminish the importance of their confessions.  Clark fears that this practice is growing in the sideline denominations.  I can see how the Form of Government or Book of Church Order begins to become more important than Scripture and the Confession.  But I don’t see the sideline denominations abandoning their confessions.

I think Clark is using the wrong side to back up his view of sola scriptura against John Frame.  He quotes D.H. Williams to say it was “not intended to be scriptura nuda.”  But that was the allegation of Rome.  Frame would appear to be saying that his form of biblicism will be similarly accused.  Frame does not reject the use of tradition, for to do so would mean he couldn’t quote Calvin and Van Til.  Or he’s inconsistent (since I haven’t read the rather large document by Frame to which Clark continually refers).

In his review of Clark’s book, Frame clarifies Clark’s misinterpretation or misrepresentation of his views (see the section under biblicism).

(1) He accuses me of teaching Scriptura nuda, the view that “Scripture is the sole resource for the Christian faith” (22). I do not teach that, and the article makes that clear. I emphatically do recognize the value of studying the Fathers, confessions, and theologians. I do believe that biblicism in the standard sense may be accused of this error, but not my “close to” Biblicism view. But Clark doesn’t bother to state or assess the difference.

Additionally, Frame refers to the larger context of Clark’s quotation to show that he indeed affirms both general and special revelation.  He merely is arguing (along with Calvin and Van Til) that we see creation (general or natural revelation) through the spectacles or lens of Scripture in order to properly interpret it.

Clark also accuses Frame of being man centered for his definition of theology as “the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life”.  This is to remove the quote from its larger context in which Frame begins with God as Covenant Lord, and the relationship between his Lordship and knowledge in his book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.  This is turning into a good lesson on how NOT to do polemical theology.

The individualistic approach to Scripture is becoming far too common is American Evangelicalism.  “What does that mean to you?” is found in too many Bible studies.  The objective meaning of Scripture is undermined.  What it means and how it applies to me are 2 different questions.  The first is objective.  Only answering that question can you move to the 2nd more subjective question.

So far nothing huge, only what may be the foreshadowing of a divide.  It does not help that I find Frame’s books helpful and he apparently disagrees with Frame profoundly.  As I read Frame’s review of the book, it looks like things may get a bit interesting.  I am struck by how often people never follow up on references in books.  Clark’s handling of John Frame thus far has been less than skillful.  One expects more from a seminary professor.