Westminster Seminary California

[Peter Bell]

Peter,

Happy to try to help. Contact me directly at:

https://heidelblog.net/contact

Thanks, Dr. Clark. Will do!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

From my time down in Escondido and being a member of a prominent church that a few of the faculty attended, I’ve learned a few things.

Many of the professors I met were very pastoral and loving toward the people. It was a blessing to interact with them at church. However, I do disagree with quite a few fundamental issues. For one, I’m not klinean, and many of the professors would lean that direction.

Many there are R2K.

I’m not sure how many are “framework” guys, but i would assume quite a few because of Kline.

Andrew,

What do you mean by “R2K”?

Does that include Calvin’s “Duplex Regimen” (twofold kingdom) doctrine, which, speaking only for myself, I have been trying to apply to our current situation.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

A good friend of mine (who was actually the assistant minister in my parents' church in Northern Ireland) transferred from WTS-PA to Westminster Seminary, California after one year in the former institution. I think that he had concerns both doctrinally and academically with WTS-PA, but was very impressed with WSC. From what I can gather, WSC is ahead of PRTS and GPTS academically, though they may be catching up with it.

I would, however, still have serious concerns that any dissent from the doctrinal distinctives of WSC could hinder your progress. Perhaps that concern is misplaced. Do any graduates of WSC who disagreed with R2K or Klineanism ever find that their dissent from such views caused them any real problems in the seminary?

Daniel,

Only speaking for myself, I have taught students for 20+ years from a variety of backgrounds. I do not penalize students for disagreeing with me theologically. As to “distinctive” views, I trust you do not consider heartily affirming (and teaching) the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity “distinctive.” The Word of God as confessed by the churches is the only standard at the seminary of which I am aware.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

One more thing, someone implied (I can’t find the comment just now) something about “antinomianism.”

Some resources on this:

https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/category/the-law-of-god-and-the-christian

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Okay, one more thing re “speculation” re natural law:

https://heidelblog.net/2011/04/natural-law-and-light-in-the-reformed-confessions/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel,

Only speaking for myself, I have taught students for 20+ years from a variety of backgrounds. I do not penalize students for disagreeing with me theologically.

Glad to hear that news.

As to “distinctive” views, I trust you do not consider heartily affirming (and teaching) the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity “distinctive.”

No problem with that point, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew,

What do you mean by “R2K”?

Does that include Calvin’s “Duplex Regimen” (twofold kingdom) doctrine, which, speaking only for myself, I have been trying to apply to our current situation.

I don’t use the acronym in a demeaning manner. I just want to point that out. I only use that term to distinguish.

With that, I would really point more to Calvin’s fourth book on the civil magistrate. There he states that the duty of the civil magistrate upholds both the first and second table.

Of the first he writes:

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. (Institutes 4.20.9)

Or where the Westminster states:

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(WCF 23.3)

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Andrew,

Of course Calvin was a theocrat. All the magisterial Reformers were theocrats. The question I keep asking modern theocrats is this: do you want Donald Trump or Gavin Newsom to enforce the first table? Has God authorized any magistrate to enforce the first table? Evidence for this in the NT is non-existent. None of the early post-apostolic asked the state to enforce the 1st table. The, among Christians, that the state should enforce the 1st table is rather late.

The Jews, however, demanded that the pagans enforce the 1st table. That was their complaint against our Lord Jesus. Even Pilate was mystified by the demand.

The question is whether the post-Theodosian settlement was right or whether the 18th-century Americans were right? I’m with the 18th-century Americans. The state-enforcement of the 1st table is a mistake.

Thus the American Presbyterians revised the WCF and the Dutch Reformed, beginning with Abraham Kuyper, revised Belgic 36 to remove the theocratic element. My federation, the URCNA, has agreed with Kuyper’s revisions.

I hope that doesn’t strike anyone as “radical.”

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The question I keep asking modern theocrats is this: do you want Donald Trump or Gavin Newsom to enforce the first table?

Donald Trump. Besides, your question is #NotAnArgument. All men everywhere are obliged to obey the whole Decalogue (Westminster Confession 19.5). Their failure to do so is their sin. Moreover, I seem to recall you arguing on your blog that you would make an exception for the fourth commandment, which, if correct, means that you do recognise that the magistrate has some duties to the first table.

Has God authorized any magistrate to enforce the first table?

So, you believe in a regulative principle of civil government? Interesting. Edit: Of course, I am only joking. But natural law provides us with a sufficient answer to that question.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Of course Calvin was a theocrat. All the magisterial Reformers were theocrats. The question I keep asking modern theocrats is this: do you want Donald Trump or Gavin Newsom to enforce the first table? Has God authorized any magistrate to enforce the first table? Evidence for this in the NT is non-existent. None of the early post-apostolic asked the state to enforce the 1st table. The, among Christians, that the state should enforce the 1st table is rather late.

Can you define what you mean by “theocrat”?

I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for in my response. However, I’m not sure saying “None of the early post-apostolic asked the state to enforce the 1st table“ is even relevant to the issue.

Thus the American Presbyterians revised the WCF and the Dutch Reformed, beginning with Abraham Kuyper, revised Belgic 36 to remove the theocratic element. My federation, the URCNA, has agreed with Kuyper’s revisions.

Im not sure how this is relevant either. Is this to say that the Klinean view of society (I think of Lee Irons specifically) is the norm for modern American reformed churches?

If you’d like, we can start a new thread to discuss the duty of the civil magistrate. We could also discuss the relationship between the church and state.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

If you’d like, we can start a new thread to discuss the duty of the civil magistrate. We could also discuss the relationship between the church and

I would suggest this. This thread should get back on track or be closed. Plus, I would like to see this side discussion worked out further on a thread solely dedicated to the "duty of the civil magistrate." It is something I have started to think more about recently.

 

[Taylor]

I would suggest this. This thread should get back on track or be closed. Plus, I would like to see this side discussion be worked out further on a thread solely dedicated to the "duty of the civil magistrate." It is something I have started to think more about recently.

I concur. This is an excellent topic to be discussed, just not here.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

There are many good teachers, but if you want to become a great preacher, I would want to sit under the best preaching teachers I could find. In this area, I find the Greenville pastors to be at the top of the list as I was converted under Dr. Pipa's preaching as a boy. They have an emphasis on "expository, exegetical, and applicatory preaching", which is not as much an emphasis at Westminster West. Of all the interns we've had at our church, the best preaching came from an intern from Greenville Seminary. If you're interested in Greenville Seminary, message Zack Groff on Facebook. You won't regret it!

 

[Hamalas]

There are many good teachers, but if you want to become a great preacher, I would want to sit under the best preaching teachers I could find. In this area, I find the Greenville pastors to be at the top of the list as I was converted under Dr. Pipa's preaching as a boy. They have an emphasis on "expository, exegetical, and applicatory preaching", which is not as much an emphasis at Westminster West. Of all the interns we've had at our church, the best preaching came from an intern from Greenville Seminary. If you're interested in Greenville Seminary, message Zack Groff on Facebook. You won't regret it!

Possibly the best preacher I have *ever* heard is Dale VanDyke here at Harvest OPC in Grand Rapids. Come to PRTS and you can sit under him!