Jan 4,2010
And he chronicles his reaction in the first of a series of posts.
Jan 7, 2010
Here are his reflections on chapter 2 (QIRC).
Jan 9, 2010
Here’s part 3 on the QIRE.
Jan 18, 2010
Here’s part 4 covering chapters 4-5 on recovering a Reformed identity.
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Eric,
I did my work independently but see the footnotes on p. 231.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks! That helps.
Having read the RRC‘s section Contemporary Reformed Discussions of Worship (pp.231-244), I couldn’t help noticing that the RPW-centered Gore-Frame analysis/comparison at least superficially resembles the article ( Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore, by Frank J. Smith, Ph.D, D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D.) that I saw hyperlinked from the main page of the TPC.
I did notice that RRC references Lachman and Gore as co-editors of a 1992 book in this section (p.238). So I was wondering if you have expressed something on this more recent 2007 paper of theirs regarding Gore-Frame and the RPW?
Correction: “Lachman and Smith as co-editors” not “Lachman and Gore as co-editors”
Greetings, Scott. I have not read your RRC, but am interested in particular in your analysis of QIRC (ch. 2). According to Sarafolean, “the danger of QIRC is being dogmatic on matters when, in fact, the Scriptures might not speak so clearly.” How do you respond to those who argue that the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is at stake, by which they mean that Scripture is absolutely clear on all matters upon which it touches?
Arnold,
You should read the book. It’s a long discussion. The short of it is that perspicuity is not in question neither are “good and necessary” inferences (WCF). The examples of QIRC I use in the book illustrate the difference between those and the QIRC.
I will certainly be reading your book, Scott, for some research I am doing; for a chapter I am writing, I am actually looking forward to it! 🙂 (reading your book, that is) I am assuming your general thesis is consonant with Mullers, right? At least on the “continuity” point.
Perhaps we can add a new abbreviation: QIRUC. Would apply to those who deny that Genesis teaches creation in six 24 hour days. (U=Un) I think it would be safe to say that QIRUCs are in the majority today.
I really enjoyed thinking about something I read on page 97 in chapter 3. “The revivalists made life impossible for ordinary ministers by charging that the latter were unregenerate…”
All this concern with QIRC and QIRE. How unregenerative! 🙂