Pastor Dave Sarafolean is Reading RRC (Updated)

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.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. 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! 🙂

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

Comments are closed.