Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January 30th, 2011

R. Scott Clark is no stranger of being the subject of our blog post.

I sometimes wonder if everything is okay with the man. Here is a man who teaches at a seminary and involved with Pastoral ministry who’s idea of selling his “Radical-Two-Kingdom-Confesssionalism-brand-of-what-it-means-to-being-Reformed” theology is by means of knocking the other guys with cheap shots and getting attention from the sensationalism.  I don’t know if it always has to be that way, nor do I know how much of this kind of activity would help advance his cause.  It’s hard to advance a cause by being a sour grape.  He has a history of throwing out criticisms that are unhelpful, comments which tend to shed more heat than light, even downright sloppy in his reasoning.

An example that comes to mind of this sort of writing  is his comparison of Doug Wilson with the cult leader of Jim Jones.

Or the sloppy reasoning behind his objection of John Frame’s Triperspectivalism.

In a recent post titled “Young, Restless and Resistant to Horton’s New Systematic Theology?”, the title suggests that the Young, Restless and Reformed” camp has been resistant to Michael’s upcoming Systematic theology.

He cites only two individuals as an example of this “Resistance”, than goes on to say

I wonder if the initial response by two of the leading Young, Restless, and Reformed bloggers says a little something about the YRR movement? Both of them were at pains to note that The Christian Faith is a “Presbyterian” book. That’s interesting because Horton deliberately pitched this work beyond the pale of the Presbyterian and Reformed world. To be sure, it is certainly written by a Reformed writer, Horton rightly has a strong doctrine of the church, and he comes to Reformed conclusions but the title of the book is The Christian Faith. He’s presenting the faith as confessed by the Reformed but he does so only after biblical exegesis and after wrestling with the Fathers and after getting to grips with the wider Christian tradition.

I overlooked the fact that two bloggers might be too small of a sample size but I did looked into the two evidences that Clark gave, Justine Taylor and Tim Challies, to see if there are any indication of any “resistance” going on but didn’t find any.  I thought these bloggers were favorable toward’s Horton’s work actually.

I don’t know why Clark would use the word “pains” to describe how the two bloggers mentioned that the book was written from a Presbyterian perspective.  It looks like they just simply noted the perspective Michael Horton was writing from.  Saying it’s a systematic theology from a Presbyterian perspective does not suddenly mean one is “resisting”  Horton’s new systematic theology, no more than if one were to  mention that Clark’s book “Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry” is written from a Reformed perspective.  To reason that way is absurd, for even Clark himself identifies his book as one of “resources on the classical Reformed approach” towards Law and Gospel distinction.  Certainly he’s not against his work is he?  Also, wrongly identifying Horton’s work as “Presbyterian” does not mean one is against the work also.

Then Clark goes on to write, “That’s interesting because Horton deliberately pitched this work beyond the pale of the Presbyterian and Reformed world. To be sure, it is certainly written by a Reformed writer, Horton rightly has a strong doctrine of the church, and he comes to Reformed conclusions but the title of the book is The Christian Faith.”  One wonders how Michael Horton’s targeted audience to persuade those outside the Presbyterian and Reformed world makes it anything less than it coming from a Presbyterian and Reformed perspective. Clark himself admits where Horton lands in the conclusion found in the book.  Having the title  “The Christian Faith” doesn’t mean one can not identify the theological persuasion of the book, and again, identifying the book’s perspective  does not imply one is resisting the book.

So I am at a loss of how Clark could have titled the blog post with the title that he had, and to think that the “Young, Restless and Reformed” crowd are resisting Horton’s new systematic theology.  To be frank, I think it’s a little premature of Clark to say what he said since the book is so new, and even then his evidences does not vindicate his conclusion.

I say be “Young, Restless and Informed.”  And get Michael Horton’s Christian Faith (A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way) book and read it.

But if Clark keeps up his tactic, he might get the “Young, Restless and Informed” resisting his unfair whining and perhaps his Confessionalism with it.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »