Thread: Recovering the Reformed Confession - Thoughts?

I am nearly finished reading through Dr. R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession. I have found it to be very insightful and beneficial, and I would heartily commend it to anyone interested in recovering a confessional theology, piety, and practice. Particularly, his discussion that connects Christian liberty with only singing inspired songs in corporate worship was very helpful, and probably my favorite section of the book. It made me long to see confessional Reformed worship recovered in the churches.

Has anyone else read the book? If so, what were your thoughts?

No sounds good though

I really enjoyed the book.
I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).

Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I really enjoyed the book.
I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).

Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.

I agree. When I was in college (2004-2008), I found QIRE one of the biggest problems facing the other professing Christian students. The concept of God ordaining specific means of grace (word, sacramant, prayer) was neglected and misunderstood. Instead, the Scriptures were substituted for a so-called "still small voice" in the "heart of hearts". To speak against this method of relating to God is often ridiculed as being "cold and dead". But, in my opinion, true, Biblical sanctification will never occur unless the Reformed understanding of the means of grace are recovered.

Would like to read it but would want to balance it with another book which has support for singing hymns also.

I appreciate these thoughts on Recovering the Reformed Confession. I can't wait to dig into the book!

I really want that book! Now all I need is some money.

I have wanted to purchase this book also but havnt had the money to do so. I do enjoy reading the RSC's posts on the Heidelblog, especially concerning QIRE.

Anecdotally, I read Clark's RRC and Hart's Lost Soul of American Protestantism right before I presented a paper at a conference on the nature of religious belief this past April. Before (and esp. after) the conference I realized that these two books go to the heart of who we are as Reformed. You see, we have a fundamentally different way of defining ourselves and thinking about our identity qua-Reformed than most other believers (religious or non-), summed up in the concept of being "confessional." I discussed this to many professors of religion/theology and sociology of religion who do not come from such a tradition, and I found that they simply could not understand such self-identification by reference to a public document of propositional beliefs that has, in most cases, a clear interpretation. My friend (also an OPC member who hold an MDiv from RTS) asked a question about the future of such confessional self-understanding and scholarship in the academic world at this conference, and I said (much to the frustration of many there) that it has a dismal future in many departments because most people have no categories whatsoever to understand such confessional believers, and they must redescribe and ultimately misrepresent believers like me (/us) (in postmodern, narrative, or whatever terminology happens to be popular).

Josiah,

As much as I would like you to own the book I would rather have you read it for free than not read it!

You can order a copy for free via inter-library loan from a public or school library. If you are a student in a school you may ask your library to do it or you may go to your local public library and ask them to order it for you. This service (may be reduced because of the financial crisis) is tax-funded and is usually free or inexpensive.

You might also ask your church librarian to order a copy or ask your local library to order and shelve a copy.

Best,

rsc

Originally Posted by Josiah

I have wanted to purchase this book also but havnt had the money to do so. I do enjoy reading the RSC's posts on the Heidelblog, especially concerning QIRE.

-----Added 4/20/2009 at 02:52:02 EST-----

Hi Sara,

I understand your reluctance, but what would you say if you learned that the singing of uninspired hymns wasn't a part of the Reformation and that the practice only began when we began to lose our way?

I understand that most people do not now worship in the same way we did from c. 1530-1789 but we should not assume that the way we worship now is necessarily correct or the way it's always been done.

The book isn't really all about what we sing in worship. The book is about how we define the adjective "Reformed." Are there as many definitions as there are definers?

I hope you'll give it a read.

rsc

Originally Posted by sjonee

Would like to read it but would want to balance it with another book which has support for singing hymns also.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I really enjoyed the book.
I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).

Many times we can fall to one of these errors...either seeking certainty where there is none given us by God, or seeking experience apart from the Word which God has given us to experience Him in a deep communion by His Spirit.

There's an interesting critique of the book by Paul Manata here at Triablogue.

BTW, when I ponder the title of this book I think of the American Church moving back to the original text of the Westminster and Belgic Confessions.

Personally, I think this book is one of the most important books to come out in a long time. It should be required reading for every pastor/elder or seminary student.

The current "Reformed" world seems to have a very selective memory of its own history, especially its confessions. I fall into that category as well since I have only recently been convinced of exclusive Psalmody. Dr. Clark was helpful in bringing me over to that position.

Thanks Dr. Clark for your amazing work!!!

Originally Posted by larryjf

I really enjoyed the book.
I especially liked his fleshing out of the "Illegitimate Quest for Certainty" and the "Illegitimate Quest for Experience" (i think that's what he called it).

Wow that sounds good. I also think many are seeking to be "right" so they can do it right, and thus miss doing it right, which is in liberty and not by a rule, but by drawing close to the Lord and having the Spirit convict and guide us and give us new desires to please God. forming Christ in us and conforming us to Christ.
Is this addressed at all?

I have finally found it at a bookstore on this side on the pond that has it in stock and ordered a copy today. Can't wait for it to arrive.

I've read it and I agree QIRE and QIRC helped explain a lot of things I've seen in reformed and the larger evangelical culture. I found his arguments on EP to be a bit lacking but that could have been due to the limited amount of space he had to write on it. Overall, it was a good read and something that I would recommend to others in the reformed camp.

I have started it and greatly appreciate it so far.

I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.

Can you clarify or puts some quotes in.

Is he saying the Confession would be an illegitimate way to have certainty of what is right or truth?

I wrote PM him and asked if he addresses strict subscription, he said yes but didn't say which side he fell on. What does he say about this?

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I welcome any book which encourages folk to take the reformed tradition seriously; but I have grave reservations when I read in this particular book that confessionally reformed teachings are to be regarded as a part of a quest for illegitimate certainty. Such "sociological" terms should be abandoned and the question of biblical warrant for holding these positions should be discussed on its own merits.

Can you clarify or puts some quotes in.

Is he saying the Confession would be an illegitimate way to have certainty of what is right or truth?

I wrote PM him and asked if he addresses strict subscription, he said yes but didn't say which side he fell on. What does he say about this?

Comments from Paul Manata's critique:

Like with Frame, the problems in this section [on The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC)] arise because, so it looks, Clark chose to use his book (also) as a pretext to take shots at those views (and persons) he’s made clear on the web and other venues that he disagrees with. …

We can press further questioning the very validity or application of QIRC to 6/24 (or theonomy for that matter). Surely Clark knows that the 6/24 view purports to be believed because “God has revealed it.” Recall the definition of QIRC Clark gave: “QIRC is the pursuit to know God in ways he has not revealed himself and to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable” (p.39). But 6/24 believes this view is revealed! They’re not attempting to know God (or his ways) in ways he has not revealed - unless you add that assumption promised not to be made: you weigh in on the exegetical case and render a negative verdict, in which case we have a massive petitio principii. In that case the 6/24 can simply reverse the charge and claim Framework is a QIRC since it is not revealed, and so is an attempt to know God in a way not revealed. (I have also had some of Clark’s students tell me that I’m not Reformed because of my 6/24 view. They also indicated that I “denied the gospel” because I held to 6/24. So it looks like little QIRCers are being produces at WSCAL.)
…
So, Clark fails to show that 6/24 (or 6/24 as boundary marker) is a QIRC. In fact, I could apply similar comments to all his examples of QIRCs. And so the problem now is, “To have real meaning” QIRC “as a universal, must have particulars, but it is exceedingly difficult to find those particulars, and even when some are nominated, there are multiple filters for determining which are included and which are not” (p.214). Ironically, then, has Clark turned his QIRC a “meaningless” category?

Originally Posted by PeaceMaker

Can you clarify or puts some quotes in.

Leaving aside the methodological difficulties associated with "biblicism" and "rationalism," the main problem is that Dr. Clark is presenting his own peculiar preferences in the reformed tradition as the reformed tradition itself. The days of creation is a blatant problem. It is there in black and white. This cannot be denied, and therefore the book attempts to explain it away. He makes a passing criticism of the reformation idea of a "standard" translation of the Bible. The concept of "Christendom" is dismissed wholesale as a mistake, even though it is maintained by every reformed confession and by means of it the reformed movement was able to exercise such an influence in society as led to the formation of the great tradition Dr Clark is both recommending and revising. While I sympathise with the book's criticism of revivalism, it is painful to hear that well attested and accepted movements like the Great Awakening is to be condemned as another quest for illegitimate certainty. Revivals are manifestations of religious principles, and should be tested according to the teaching which they promote, not outrightly rejected as if all religious experience is spurious. Lastly, the section on confessional revision is somewhat simplistic in its presentation. It fails to acknowledge that reformation confessions were rewritten specifically to foster broader religious unity. They were not revised for the purpose of validating the latest theological fad, but to form provincial, national, and international ties with brethren of the same mind. But the book has some very strong points as well. Foremost is the reformed view of the church and its worship which is presented in it. At last somebody in the academic establishment is willing to voice concerns over the anarchy which prevails in many denominations springing from the reformed tradition. I pray this concern is fostered and leads to a thorough reformation.

Originally Posted by markkoller

Personally, I think this book is one of the most important books to come out in a long time. It should be required reading for every pastor/elder or seminary student.

I agree. Too many in the Reformed community have lost their way with regard to confessional fidelity. Even in my seminary days, I remember getting into a heated discussion in the break room one day over how many "exceptions" he was to take to the WCF. And we have a steady stream of works coming from within the Reformed community that are written contra-confessionally. I am only about 1/3 of the way through the book, but it seems to be a good antidote to such drifting away from our Reformed Standards.

Clark ment that people use 6/24 creation as a boundry marker of who is reformed, and not that the belief in 6/24 creation is QIRCy.

I realize the thread is a few weeks old, but I was able to go through this book again a few days ago; and--while there is certainly room to differ from the author on the application of some of the principles, especially for those coming from a more Scottish Presbyterian background--I can think of few better resources out there for introducing more mainline friends and colleagues to the meaning of Confessionalism. The book is accessible, clear, easy to read and presents well the importance, virtue and benefit of being confessional, along with giving an historical framework in which to understand this topic. I would highly recommend giving this to friends and family who aren't quite sure what you mean when you claim to be "Confessional," especially those who see our worship practices as strange and novel.

In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:

Ordained Servant

Summary line from the review:

<i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>

Thanks to the kind invitation of the editor, a response is forthcoming next month. Let's just say that the author does not recognize his own book in the review.

Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog

Shaun Nolan and Matt Bohling give the book a somewhat more positive review on their Ordinary Means podcast this month:
The Books Podcast Ordinary Means

You can see links to other reviews here: (not all the posts under this heading are reviews but many are)

Recovering The Reformed Confession — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress

Just ordered a copy via inner-library loan.

Originally Posted by mvdm

In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:

Ordained Servant

Summary line from the review:

<i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>

This review seemed a bit overly negative. I agree with many of the negative points he made, but found quite a few positive points in RRC as well.

I find myself in general agreement with the sentiments expressed by Triablogue, Rev. Strange, and Rev. Winzer. The QIRC and (to a lesser extent) QIRE labels are poor choices. You can't know whether six-day creation is a quest for illegitimate certainty without knowing two things -

1) God's intention in giving Genesis 1
2) a person reached the 6/24 position through an a priori method.

#1 is essentially begging the question, since your perception of what God intended to communicate is determined by your position on the passage. #2 would require knowing that a person reached the 6/24 position through the a priori proposition "Genesis 1 must teach the exact timing of the creation." In reality, every 6/24 I have met holds their position based on a posteriori engagement with the passage. Thus, on both counts, Clark fails to prove a QIRC. Similar issues plague the other examples. I also think his archetypal/ectypal distinction, though true, is overblown in connection to the QIRC. However, that doesn't make his conclusions invalid. I just would have appreciated a more neutral (honest) label, such as "Things that are wrong in Reformed theology."

As far as QIRE goes, I think he has a stronger case for the category, although what he puts in there is open to question.

Overall, I thought the book was helpful to my learning. It certainly helped me think through my confessional identity and theology of worship (I find it interesting that Catholics have an explicit category "liturgical theology" but we don't). It exposed me to a different viewpoint on the American Awakenings and the role of the means of grace. I found it stylistically appropriate, neither condescending nor obscure; it is an engaging read.

I recently ordered my copy of RRC and I cant Waite to read it!

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by mvdm

In the latest Ordained Servant is a review by Rev. Alan Strange of Mid-America Reformed Seminary:

Ordained Servant

Summary line from the review:

<i>The restoration that we need is not to be had by the sort of blueprint that Clark would impose on the church. </i>

This review seemed a bit overly negative. I agree with many of the negative points he made, but found quite a few positive points in RRC as well.

I find myself in general agreement with the sentiments expressed by Triablogue, Rev. Strange, and Rev. Winzer. The QIRC and (to a lesser extent) QIRE labels are poor choices. You can't know whether six-day creation is a quest for illegitimate certainty without knowing two things -

Actually, the review was quite charitable. Note that there was much more critique of Clark's misrepresentation of Edwards that Strange did not lay out due to space limitations. Based on my own reading, I can see it would take quite a few pages to do a detailed unraveling of what was constructed on that topic.

I got mine yesterday!

Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog

Yes, posting Sebastian's reply is self-serving--mea culpa--but he did a better job of responding than I did:

Disappointing indeed, as was Dr. Strange’s presentation at the “Animus Imponentis Conference” earlier this year.

First, Strange misses the “irenical” character of RRC when he says:
“What it means to follow the Reformed confessions (note now the plural)—to develop one’s theology, piety, and practice from such—is more textured and varied than Clark lets on in this book. It is not accurate to present such a thin slice of what it means to be Reformed and argue as if that constricted view is exhaustive of the Reformed faith. Clark occasionally cites Richard Muller in support of his approach, as if Muller’s project of showing concord between Calvin and the Calvinists was intended to present a narrow, uniform Calvinism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”

The way I understood RRC, the use of the singular “Reformed confession” did not narrow the focus at all, but rather broaden it into the broad consensus of what the Reformed have historically held in common.

Second, so the archetypal/ectypal distinction is NOT “confessionally warranted” according to Dr. Strange? If so we probably need to discuss what WCF 1.1 and 7.1 actually mean.

However, where Dr. Strange’s review gets really disappinting is when he says “we need more than these things…” and then launches into how we need more emphasis on union with Christ and communion with God and each other etc. Come on! Is that his recipe for reformation?

Then, he defines “orthodoxism” as, quote, “an emphasis on the forms, on the means of grace, for example, in which the means threaten to become ends in themselves”. True, the latter would be bad, but the former? So, back to Kant and the old argument of form vs. content, eh?

Showing, as you do in RRC, the dangers of an Edwardsian QIRE, does NOT mean, as Strange alleges, an inability “to profit from a remarkably sin-sensitive, Christ-centered writer.” It just ain’t the same thing. One can warn of consequences of a certain view and still profit from it in part.

When Dr. Strange quotes WCF 21.6 to disprove your view in RRC that “private prayer is not a means of grace”, he shows no awareness of the age-old discussion of the function of prayer as a means of grace in the Continental Reformed confessions and the Westminster Standards. Again, Strange misses Clark’s irenical case for an understanding of prayer that does justice to BOTH the Cont. Ref. confessions AND the Westminster tradition.

Finally, when Strange says, “We need restoration in which the outer follows the inner. This was the dynamic of the great Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.”- I beg to differ. The genious of the Reformation, and with it, of the Reformed confession (singular!) is the unity between the outer and the inner, call it sacramental union or something else, and decisively NOT that a hollow “outer” follows some pietistic “inner”.

This review is nothing that gives me no second thoughts whatsoever about what I have read, appreciated and enjoyed in RRC. Keep up the good work!

I have reviewed the book here. I don't wish my minor disagreements with Scott to cloud the value of the book, which I think is tremendous. On the issue of a literal 6/24 creation week, I do think there are those who would illegitimately disband people from the church for not believing it. I believe in 6/24 creation week, and do not think that the belief itself is QIRC. But then, I don't think that is what Clark is saying, either. It is not the belief itself that Clark attacks, but a certain way that belief is being (ab)used in the church today. I do think it ought to be listed as an exception to the Westminster Standards, because the standards clearly teach it. I also think Clark may have been a bit harsh on Jonathan Edwards. I don't agree with everything Edwards said, but his treatise on Religious Affections was designed to combat the very tendencies that Clark rails against in QIRE, in my opinion. These two areas should not diminish, however, the great value the book has, especially in clearly setting forth what a confessional church ought to look like.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Recent Reviews of RRC Heidelblog

Yes, posting Sebastian's reply is self-serving--mea culpa--but he did a better job of responding than I did:

This review is nothing that gives me no second thoughts whatsoever about what I have read, appreciated and enjoyed in RRC. Keep up the good work!

So, does this mean that review is something that gives him second thoughts about what he has read?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I have reviewed the book here. I also think Clark may have been a bit harsh on Jonathan Edwards. I don't agree with everything Edwards said, but his treatise on Religious Affections was designed to combat the very tendencies that Clark rails against in QIRE, in my opinion.

I'm working on a review documenting the misrepresentations of Edwards, which I hope to complete in the near future. I picked up on what Lane mentioned here, that the Treatise on Religious Affections runs directly contrary to Clark's lumping Edwards into sundry nefarious categories. When I was reading RRC{sic}, I seriously questioned whether Clark had even read the book.

Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.

-----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----

Lane,

Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:

"according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”

I found Iain Murray's biography of Edwards to be much more balanced and one that men like Mark Noll found to be much more "of Edwards" than Marsden's.

[QUOTE=R. Scott Clark;631185]Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.[QUOTE]

No guns will be necessary, Scott. Edwards can easily defend himself.

And yes, I have read Marsden's biography, as well as Murray's.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.

-----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----

Lane,

Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:

"according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”

Well, I certainly would not agree with Edwards in his doctrine of continued creation. Hodge was right in saying that Edwards's doctrine was essentially pantheistic in its consequences. I think that is an important modifier, however. Hodge is not claiming that Edwards thought of his own doctrine as pantheistic. Even on Hodge's own reading of Edwards, Edwards thought of God as the only true substance and the world as having a dependent existence (see Hodge, ST II, p. 218). Let me ask you this, though, Scott (and this is a genuine question, not a snarky one): what exactly do you think is the relevance of Edwards's view of continued creation, on the one hand, to the Great Awakening, on the other (and by implication QIRE)? And does Edwards have anything to say about what you call QIRE in his book Religious Affections?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I found Iain Murray's biography of Edwards to be much more balanced and one that men like Mark Noll found to be much more "of Edwards" than Marsden's.

Indeed. While some may accuse Murray's biography of falling into a "Golden Age" representation of persons and events, I found that Marsden often fell off to the other side (which for some reason seems to be more respectable in our circles) of trying to please the academy and standing a little too detached from what should be the acknowledged and impacting reality of Christian truth in a biography that necessarily interacts not just with a man's theology and life on an academic level, but with the reality of his faith in Christ.

It's of the same cloth as McCulloch's work on Cranmer. Measured, informative, but ultimately devoid of any real Christian warmth (at least until McCullochs final chapter). And, no, I don't believe that it is good historical practice to try and separate our Christian faith from our understanding of history; secularists certainly don't chuck their atheism and existentialism/nihilism/etc when composing their own works.

Lane,

My point wasn't to set fire to St Jonathan but to call attention to the uncomfortable aspects of his theology and their connection with the 1GA and to the subsequent tradition. The point of that move is to suggest that perhaps (just perhaps!) Edwards is not the paradigm for the way forward.

I tried to point the ontological turn marked by his theology. One way to put it is that it marked a turn from Aristotle (17th-century Reformed orthodoxy) to Plato. As I re-read him, after reading Schleiermacher and others, I found him to anticipate aspects of Romanticism (subjectivism) that have continued to influence Reformed piety in the modern period. This is highly problematic and the neo-Platonic aspects of his thought have been downplayed because it doesn't fit the prevailing myth of Edwards circulated among orthodox Calvinists. The ontological turn is not innocent. In all likelihood it is organically connected to the problems with his doctrine of justification. One cannot utterly divorce Edwards from the more problematic side of his theological/intellectual family tree (New Haven).

We can and must appreciate Edwards but we should read him critically. Typically, in my experience, this is not the way he is read in our circles.

I also wanted to issue an implicit caution about the renewed enthusiasm for all things Edwardsean represented by the Desiring God movement. I'm concerned about the long-term effect of "Christian hedonism." I'm concerned about the effect it will have on ordinary means (i.e. Word and sacrament) ministry. I'm concerned that it moves the Christian life away from dying to self and living to Christ, away from the realism of the Reformed confessions to the idealism of Cambridge Platonism and other pantheizing tendencies. I'm concerned about the quasi-Pentecostal piety I see among those who seem most devoted to Edwards. I'm concerned about an over-realized eschatology. I'm concerned about a theology of glory.

I realize that, for those who are not in touch with the academic literature on Edwards, some of what I wrote might be a little shocking. Before folk fly into a rage over my criticisms of some aspects of the 1GA (which was really the point of the chapter) they ought to read some of the lit for themselves.

The real point of the QIRE chapter is to take issue with the revival paradigm, to challenge the notion that it's possible to separate cleanly revivalism from revival. I worry about folk sitting about praying for revival or worse, for making the next "Great Awakening" the be all and end all of the Christian life instead of getting on with the Christian life in the here and now. I worry about the effect of a mythological, golden-age history of the 18th-century which bears little relation to the history as historians know it.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Before you start blasting with all guns Mark, be sure to read Marsden's biography.

-----Added 6/5/2009 at 01:50:51 EST-----

Lane,

Was Hodge "harsh" toward Edwards? He wrote about Edwards:

"according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.”45 He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”

Well, I certainly would not agree with Edwards in his doctrine of continued creation. Hodge was right in saying that Edwards's doctrine was essentially pantheistic in its consequences. I think that is an important modifier, however. Hodge is not claiming that Edwards thought of his own doctrine as pantheistic. Even on Hodge's own reading of Edwards, Edwards thought of God as the only true substance and the world as having a dependent existence (see Hodge, ST II, p. 218). Let me ask you this, though, Scott (and this is a genuine question, not a snarky one): what exactly do you think is the relevance of Edwards's view of continued creation, on the one hand, to the Great Awakening, on the other (and by implication QIRE)? And does Edwards have anything to say about what you call QIRE in his book Religious Affections?