PCA FV committee appointed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
E.g., Clark's definition of faith, in the doctrine of justification, is not particularly amenable to either WCF 11.1 or HC 21.

Could you explain?

WCF 11.1
11:1 Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth(Rom_3:24; Rom_8:30): not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ´s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them (Jer_23:6; Rom_3:22, Rom_3:24, Rom_3:25, Rom_3:27, Rom_3:28; Rom_4:5-8; Rom_5:17-19; 1Co_1:30, 1Co_1:31; 2Co_5:19, 2Co_5:21; Eph_1:7; Tit_3:5, Tit_3:7), they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Act_10:44; Act_13:38, Act_13:39; Gal_2:16; Eph_2:7, Eph_2:8; Phi_3:9).

I see no conflict with Clark's definition of faith and this. Would it be that Clark said that faith is belief and the WCF seems to imply they were not the same when it says: "...nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them...". Even if that is the case, it hardly means Clark's definition conflicts with the WCF. WCF 11.1 would still say essentially the same thing in either case. If Clark is correct, then the WCF is simply being redundant, If Clark is incorrect, the WCF is just being a bit more explicit. They could have listed more acts of "evangelical obedience" and been even more explicit. But maybe you could explain what you mean.

(I know this is off-topic, but I'm really scratching my head over this.)

P.S. I looked up HC 21 and I agree. I think the HC is just following the the (false) heard/heart dicotomy there. (I think it's a Greek thing.) Oh well, nobody's perfect.



[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Civbert]
 
Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R.

re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty.

rsc

Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
...
In fact, one of my chief concerns about the FV is it's implicit rationalism. This is a frequent twin to biblicism and I see a sort of rationalism in the Clarkians. So if we orthodox Van Tillians (on justification) seem irrational and inconsistent to you, Clarkians who are orthodox on justification seem rationalist and inconsistent to me.

...

OK. I've looked up the definition of "rationalism" and I just don't see how you can connect Clark (or Van Til for that matter) to it. The shot definition I found was rationalism is a view that the *source* of knowledge is reason. Given that Clark considered scripture to be the foundation of knowledge (and Van Til might have said God), then it just doesn't apply.

Now biblicism seem to be contrasted with systematic theology - in that it rejects the systematization of theology. This also does not fit the mode of rationalism.

The connection I see between VT and FV is philosophical. VT asserted there are"apparent" contradictions in scripture that man can not reconcile them. The biblicist would seem to agree. Systematic theology strives to reconcile apparent conflicts in scripture to produce a coherent non-contradictory system of Christian thought. I expect the FV'ers might prefer (like VT) to embrace the apparent contradictions they find (and call it "biblical theology").

Maybe you could explain what you mean by the "rationalism" of FV and how it is similar to Clark's views. I can't see applying the term to FV, VT, or GC.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R.

I'm sure it's a fine book, but could you explain a little here?


Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty.

rsc

Yes he did. He removed the emotional and psychological baggage many people want to attach to faith. For Clark, the spiritual and the intellectual were essentially same ("we have the mind of Christ") - unlike the mystics and empiricist who explain faith as something "other" and mystical and babble babble nonsense. Clark defined saving faith as simply to believe the gospel (to believe in Christ as expressed in Scripture). It's refreshing!
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by johnny_redeemed
Originally posted by R. Scott ClarkIn his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.

Where can this be found? I would love to hear it. :banana:

RTS Jackson library.

It used to be able to be at this link:

http://www.paulperspective.com/page6.html

I have them downloaded in Mp3 format, but the two lectures are quite large (almost 50 MG each).
 
Hmmm...one could try at St Anne's Pub, whatever that link is. But if it is an old one at St Anne's (which it is), it will probably only be in Real Audio (non-downloadable) format, but I could be wrong.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by johnny_redeemed
Originally posted by R. Scott ClarkIn his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.

Where can this be found? I would love to hear it. :banana:

RTS Jackson library.

It used to be able to be at this link:

http://www.paulperspective.com/page6.html

I have them downloaded in Mp3 format, but the two lectures are quite large (almost 50 MG each).

It is available for download here for a small fee:

http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?itemid=1158
 
1. In a word, no. That's why I write articles in books.

2. The Heidelberg's definition of faith isn't emotional. There are three aspects to faith in the act of justification. That's the Reformed doctrine. Clark disagreed, probably because of his Platonism. Fine. He's a revisionist in his own way.

rsc

Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R.

I'm sure it's a fine book, but could you explain a little here?


Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty.

rsc

Yes he did. He removed the emotional and psychological baggage many people want to attach to faith. For Clark, the spiritual and the intellectual were essentially same ("we have the mind of Christ") - unlike the mystics and empiricist who explain faith as something "other" and mystical and babble babble nonsense. Clark defined saving faith as simply to believe the gospel (to believe in Christ as expressed in Scripture). It's refreshing!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top