Posts Tagged ‘John Muether’

Yes, it has been since before my vacation that I’ve read any of Recovering the Reformed Confession. I’ve been quite busy since I’ve been back.  But I’m picking up with Recovering Reformed Worship.

Immediately he is lamenting the changes to worship liturgy in the last 30 years, including the loss of the Psalter.  He quotes D.G. Hart:

“… more congregations in the PCUSA are likely to follow the Genevan order of service than those in the OPC or PCA.”

My initial response is that the Genevan order of service isn’t getting them too far.  I’d rather keep Calvin’s theology than his order of service.

We actually utilize a fairly traditional liturgy or structure to our worship (Call to Worship, Invocation, Confession of Sin, Confession of Faith, Pastoral Prayer, Scripture Reading & Sermon, Benediction).  We want the heritage to inform us, but not enslave us.  Clark is alarmed that Calvin, the Heidelberg Reformers and others would not recognize our worship services.  Neither would the Apostles.  For that matter, they wouldn’t recognize the services of Calvin and the others either.


Read Full Post »

I must confess that I have not finished Herman Hoeksema’s book The Clark-Van Til Controversy, because it was giving me a headache.  Part of the problem with this Trinity Foundation book is that it is a compilation of editorials HH did in The Standard Bearer.  HH sees much of the Christian Reformed Church controversy of 1924 in this 1940’s issue in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  I fear his baggage blinds him.

A disclaimer: at RTS Orlando I studied under a number of men who went to Westminster and could be called Van-Tillian (Pratt, Kidd, & Glodo).  It was a unique time there since R.C. Sproul, a classical apologist was on the faculty, as we also had the late Dr. Nash teaching us philosophy and apologetics.  Dr. Nash was a rationalist (unapologetically) and greatly influenced by Clark.  Let’s just say it was interesting.  But Nash’s big Clark-Van Til story indicated to me that Nash either didn’t read, didn’t understand or refused to accept what Van Til wrote on these matters.  The apocryphal story was his complete refutation of Van Til.  But I digress.

The issue revolved primarily around the continuity and distinctions between God’s knowledge and our knowledge.  Hoeksema seeks to defend Clark and seems to overlook some very important pieces of the puzzle.


Read Full Post »