No, I'm expecting us to agree with the Reformed confessions and to read them in the light of the context in which they were written. I've compiled (with the help of several others over the years) dozens of quotations from Reformed theologians from various periods illustrating the Reformed distinction between law and gospel and it gets ignored. I've written at length on this issue, in print, and people seem to demand that I reproduce it all here from my keyboard on command.
The material is in print. Read it.
Agree with Clark? No. Agree with the Reformed churches. That's what I'm trying to do.
Frame's essay. I've read it. Frame thinks the l/g distinction is some boutique view that can be segregated to a certain segment of the Reformed community. That's historically and confessionally impossible.
I want to know why on earth anyone thinks his essay is remotely interesting or helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader  Dr. Clark,
It seems to be your view that either we accept your view of law and gospel or we might as well go ahead and embrace FV and/or go back to Rome?
Am I reading you correctly?
CT |
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC The Heidelblog