About 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. Read more» He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

Imperative And Indicative; Law And Gospel

James writes to ask, I am trying to work out the Law/Grace distinction, and am having some trouble understanding the imperative/indicative divide. For example, in Acts 3 Peter is preaching what appears to be the gospel in the Temple, and he preaches . . . Continue reading →

Three Things Dispensational Apologists Should Stop Saying

There are varieties of Dispensationalism, e.g., classic (Darby, Scofield), modified (Chafer, Ryrie), and progressive (Bock, Blaising). To be sure there are varieties of covenant theology, e.g., classic e.g., that taught in the classical period that taught the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), . . . Continue reading →

Reconsidering The Covenant Of Works

If one learned Reformed theology, in the English-speaking world, before 2005 the probabilities are that the version learned did not include either the covenant of works between God and Adam before the fall or the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son . . . Continue reading →

Grammar Guerrilla: Proud, Prideful; Converse, Conversate

Guerilla-Gorilla

HB reader Barbara asks, “Is conversate a word? I am a nurse and see other nurses using it in their progress notes. Example: ‘The resident was seen conversating with her room mate.’ Thanks Barbara. That is a good question. In English, verbs, . . . Continue reading →

Strangers And Aliens (15a): Turning The Other Cheek (1 Peter 3:8–12)

When a group faces external pressure, criticism, or perhaps even persecution of some kind it may lead to internal fractures and schism. The Apostle Peter was aware of this possibility among the congregations in (modern) Turkey. He has been urging them to respond appropriately to those outside the congregation but in this section he turns his attention to those within the congregation. How ought they to relate to one another? Continue reading →