Escondido Theology Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is a review of A Secular Faith by D.G. Hart. Hart is of course one who often gives as good as he gets, so one might could expect some fireworks. I am not a fan of this new type of communication where the one with the sharpest barb wins, but perhaps it is just because I am not so good at it.

Frame does make an odd attack at the beginning where he points out derogatorily that the Escondido group is mostly historians. He does not explain why this is awful, but clearly implies it. It is even stranger because Frame admits the book is an excellent history book.

Hart's book hits on the most upsetting aspect of 2K theology to most people: politics. Hart states "that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless in solving America's political disputes" (Hart pg. 11). Although he does admit influence from the church on society but one that is mostly "indirect and unintentional" (pg. 233). Frame obviously takes issue with such an idea and especially the idea that this is the historic reformed position. It fits with Frame's absolutizing accusation against the Escondido theologians. Frame further complains when Hart allows for implications and motivations taken from Scripture for secular activities, which is apparently different from teachings or commands. This Frame rightly points out would make it hard to enforce if it truly is the only acceptable position when you are dealing with implications and motivations.

The interesting part of Frame's critique comes in interacting with Hart on the Biblical text especially in John. John 18:36 where Jesus says that HIs kingdom is not of this world is the first major battle ground. Hart takes this as evidence that Christ's kingdom is indeed different from the secular political kingdom since he is saying it to Pilate, a Roman official. Frame counters with counting up the references to "world" in John chapters 14-18, which he totals at 43. Most refer to the earthly physical realm, not politics. Frame then argues that Jesus is saying that the Kingdom is from the Father above the earthly realm rather than Hart's assertion that the kingdom is of a different character entirely. The reading and understanding of this verse has great implications for other places in John such as 15:19 and 17:16 where the disciples are said to be "not of the world". Does this mean the disciples are to be of another character entirely or are they from the Father above. Can you see the difference now of Frame's Transformationalism? The kingdom is not of a different nature, it is just from a different origin. Hart would rather it be of a different nature than the human politics and human power. Frame goes on to discuss the Kingdom coming to earth in places like Luke 17:21, where it is said to be amidst them already. For Frame this kingdom coming to earth is simply coming from the Father, but can come in the same manner as an earthly kingdom. It is not different in its nature, only its source. Thus, Christian political parties are a good thing because they help usher in the kingdom. Christian labor unions can be good because they too bring the Kingdom of God from the Father. Hart sees unions and governments as not instruments capable of bringing the Kingdom because the Kingdom of God is not of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It comes about through foolishness of preaching and through the power of the Suffering Servant. They end up being wildly different.

The second biblical discussion is about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" in Matthew 22:21 and Luke 20:25. Hart sees this verse as a 2K separation. Caesar is a pagan and yet his government is legitimate and to be lived under and submitted to even in taxes, an odious thing. Frame thinks the passage teaches rather that God is the ultimate ruler of everything and has simply granted Caesar some of it for a time and that is why he is to be submitted to at all. In fact, Frame points out that simply because it might be legitimate does not mean that is the ideal way to live. In other words, Frame is saying that Jesus's silence about transforming the government to a Christian one means nothing, but Hart is saying Jesus is silent, and it means everything. For why would Jesus be silent if he meant for us to try and transform the government?

One other part that needs to be noted is that Hart does state the Bible is the guide only for "church life" and politics is supposed to be guided by "reason and prudence". Frame attacks this as a reduction of Christ's sovereignty and Bible's place in a Christians life. And I have to say here I agree with Frame. It is hard to read II Timothy 3:16-17 as a guide only for church life.

But Hart is militating against the use of Scripture for a particular political stance, and really what Biblical text can you point to for a program of reducing taxes? What about opposing Social Security? Or supporting it? Hart in fact points out that Christianity is an intolerant exclusive religion, how then can it support a government that is tolerant of differing faiths if transformationalism is true? And here I think Hart is right. Frame of course disagrees and actually says "I do in fact believe that in a general sense government should be theocratic. . . . [acknowledging] Jesus Christ as king of kings." (Frame pg.265). And there you have the main difference. I think it comes back to Hart's "implications and motivations". But we ought to be able to fellowship with someone who has a different political opinion than we do. I am not sure Frame' view allows for such things. Churches ought to be all of the same political persuasion, the Christian political one.

This chapter was very good for the biblical arguments, but I think Frame goes to far afield when he advocates government spreading the Kingdom of Christ.

Escondido Theology Chapter 6

It has taken me a little longer to post this review because I believe this chapter is a very important one in the book. In this chapter Frame deals with Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology. This is a 42 page review of Horton's book, but 32 of the pages deal with Horton's first chapter. This I think is important as it shows a methodological difference between the two camps. Horton in his book argues for five methodological tools, and Frame takes them one at a time.

1. Post-Reformation Scholastics
Horton wants to take seriously the Reformed Scholastics. Frame argues that Horton does not do so and points to the volume of quotes from others. This also fits nicely into Frame's mantra that the Escondido Theology is absolutizing a portion of the Reformed Heritage and claiming it as the only orthodox solution. I do think also that this applies to others in the Escondido group. There does appear to be an affinity for 17th century theologians of the Reformation. One thing that I think Frame and Horton both do not do justice to is that the Reformed Scholastics were Scholastics because of a method that they used. The Scholastic Method. I think it is probably better to just view this as 17th century Reformers rather than actual Scholastics. Too often that term is used broadly to mean the latter portion of the Reformation, but it is not really accurate to do so. Frame is rather brief here.

2. Redemptive Historical/Eschatological Method
Horton here speaks of a Promise-Fulfillment methodology where we see the centrality of God acting and God speaking. Horton sees it in contrast to Platonism. We see the present age and the age to come as opposed to Plato's two worlds. Horton brings in Theology of the Cross and Theology of Glory. Theology of Glory being an overrealized eschatology here and now in the present and the Theology of the Cross being an already-not yet mentality. Frame points out this is related to Horton's emphasis on visualization (Theology of Glory) and proclamation (Theology of the Cross). Theology of Glory and Theology of the Cross just set Frame off anytime they are used, and here is no exception. Frame does see glory for us here and now, and sees the link between glory and the cross. Frame also sees an ontology in the Bible, and it is the Creator-Creature distinction. Frame then speaks of Presuppositional apologetics and the critique goes on from there. However, it is not clear to me that Horton actually rejects Presuppositionalism. In fact, I know VanDrunen affirms it in several places. So this critique seems more of a Frame overreaction to terms he does not like than an actual critique of something in Horton. True, Horton does not specifically bring up the Creator-Creature distinction here, but he also does nothing to suggest he rejects it.

3. Analogical Mode
This was a weird section to read. It seems to me that this is one of the places where Horton is coming down on the side of VanTil against Clark, without ever directly speaking to it. Horton claims our knowledge is more dissimilar than similar to God's knowledge and it is not univocal, but rather analogical. If my understanding of the Clark-VanTil Controversy is right, this is one of the disputed topics. Horton fails to define analogical which is enough to lose me. I need a good definition, and not one that is simply a negative, but one that contains positive light. Frame one would think would be in agreement here with Horton, but not so much. Frame argues for some sort of similarity in knowledge. Saying "God is good" is affirming something real, something we can know. Not just in how God is different, but in something about God himself. Not perfectly or absolutely, but it is still knowing God. Horton seems to agree with Clark's "certain degree of falseness" in our knowledge and speech about God. I think Frame may actually be right here.

4. Dramatic Model
Horton here wants a "history-centered" method as opposed to "text-centered" one. Frame spends a lot of time nit picking at such things as how unfocused words like "centered" are, but in reality he has no major objections. Frame does eventually admit this. He could have trimmed about 5 pages off the book, if he had just said that up front.

5. Covenant Context
Horton here moves on into the Covenant as an important methodological understanding. We are in covenant with God. He speaks and acts in covenant. Thus, the covenant becomes a very important thing for us to understand. Frame points out that Horton follows Klein on covenants. And this again is a major area of disagreement between Frame and the Escondido group. Frame believes that we are saved by grace in all the covenants, and that in all the covenants there are rewards that we merit. He points to Matthew 5:46, 6:4, and 10:40-42. And as I have pointed out earlier Horton has no problem with Shepherd. So, on this point, I tend to agree with Horton. I am not sure how Frame would line up his view with the Heidelberg Catechism's answer that even our best works in this life are tainted and stained with sin, but it would be interesting to know.

The rest of Frame's chapter covers quickly Horton's book. It boils down to two main problems. Frame continually hammers the lack of emphasis on the Creator-Creature distinction, which again I cannot find denied anywhere. Frame just thinks it ought to appear. And then the aforementioned analogical debate. Frame does I think hold to an analogical knowledge, but one with a univocal core (pg.234). This way we are able to actually affirm truths about God. Although Frame does work in a shot at the Law/Gospel distinction of Horton in the last page or two.

Ovearall the amount of time Frame spends on this is striking. I believe that a lot of Frame's objections stem from methodological differences. The disagreements about the Covenant Context appear to have a major impact on this debate. The analogical problem leaving a "degree of falsehood" in all we say and understand about God is a bit troubling. So, I think Frame has pointed out an epistemological problem, but the Covenant dispute seems more important in this Two Kingdom debate. VanDrunen states a couple of times in his book that a consistent view of Justification by Faith will lead one to a Two Kingdom understanding, and while Frame would obviously reject that point, Frame does bring this doctrine back to the forefront of the debate with his critique of the Covenant Context. An interesting chapter to say the least.

Escondido Theology Chapter 5

Chapter 5 I am just going to briefly touch because I will admit I have never read Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. This is easily the most scholarly chapter as Frame shows a great deal of respect for Kline. Frame also views Kline as the fountain head of the Escondido Theology.

Interestingly despite a great deal of respect for Kline, Frame believes the Absolutizing (rejecting other views as Reformed) even comes from Kline. He explains that Kline's reaction to the Shepherd Controversy and opposing the Theonomy of Greg Banshen. This is the beginning of the problem for Frame. Kline goes to Escondido, and the faculty ends up preferring Kline's view of things to Frame and the acceptance of divergent views that was characteristic of Philadelphia.

One can see the influence of Kline in Escondido. The acceptance of Framework hypothesis for example. Frame argues that the Two Kingdoms owes a lot to Kline, and maybe so, but even Frame admits it was around with Luther, so Kline is hardly a lynch pin in that equation. Kline held to a post-fall split between Cult and Culture (cult being worship). Culture was a common activity for both the believer and the unbeliever, cult was only for the follower of Christ. This is how Kline ties into the Two Kingdoms, and Frame rejects it claiming "We can find no passage (or biblical principle) that suggests that our cultural labors are anything other than an offering, a living sacrifice, to the glory of God." (pg.171).

Frame rejects Kline's reading of Genesis 9. Kline does not believe Genesis 9 reinstates the Cultural Mandate. Frame, of course, disagrees. Frame's argument really has two prongs. One is that he believes it is simply the natural reading to see Genesis 9 linked to Genesis 1. The main part of the argument (at least here) is that holiness is a matter of degrees. This is a concept I had not really thought of before. Frame uses the illustration of the temple. There was the Most Holy Place where the Ark was kept. And in relation to that everything else is profane. However, the room next to it was known as the Holy Place, and there the was altar of incense and the showbread. And of course the temple itself was seen as a holy place as a whole. He points out that holy ground occurs where God makes an appearance like the burning bush. Thus, for Frame holiness is a matter of degree. This goes against Kline who sees a strict difference between sacred and profane, cult and culture. Frame uses it to claim that everything must be done for God's glory, and everything is in some sense then a holy activity. This really seems to be the underlying point of much of Frame's chapter. The sharp distinction is rejected in favor of degrees of holiness and spirituality.

Again, this chapter is probably better if you had read Kline's work, but I am not planning on doing that so you have to just bear with me. This chapter makes the most effort to interact in a scholarly way. And it is done with a pleasant tone with the obvious exception of the Appendix. This could be seen as a funny joke, but considering the rest of the book, it comes off more as mocking. It is a chart to help you come up with your own Klinian Terms. Just mash any two terms together and viola! Apparently Kline must have been big on this. It adds nothing, and I would have thought a decent editor would have taken this out.

For me (remembering my limitations) the chapter hinges on the discussion about holiness as degrees. And while I am ready to concede that Judaism has degrees of holiness, I am not sure that it is right. The temple may indeed have a Most Holy Place and the Holy Place, but the temple itself is a type pointing to Christ. The question becomes whether or not there is any holiness outside of Christ? And then whether or not that means our service in daily jobs is a degree of holiness simply because the temple had holy places? Frame pushes the idea often of a strict and broad definition of worship with the broad definition being basically equal to service. That way by definition all of life can be said to be worship. This sort of requires a view of degrees of holiness because that statement is only true if we take the broad definition of worship. It also requires a rejection of 2K and Kline's theology because with the broad definition of worship there can be no separation of anything in worship. But if we just agreed to use a different term for the broad worship category (like maybe service), would this rejection still be so mandatory? I feel a little like his terms lead him into certain conclusions.
And just as importantly if the Heidelberg Catechism says even my best works are stained with sin in this life, can they rightly be considered sort of holy? Would we not be able to look at one another say, "I am more holy than you"? Because holiness is a matter of degree and thus the statement is completely possible.

I will say this that Frame has given me something to think about in this chapter. And again, if you have read Kingdom Prologue you will probably benefit more from the discussion.

Escondido Theology Chapter 4

This chapter Frame examines David VanDrunen's A Biblical Defense of Natural Law. This chapter does not quite contain as many clearly choppy responses, and I think it reflects the fact that Frame does not quite have the problem with VanDrunen he has with some of the others. In fact, Frame admits up front that he agrees with VanDrunen's view that Natural Law exists. He also seems to agree with the traditional interpretation of Romans 2, and thus agrees with VanDrunen on that point as well. Frame has some quibbles about VanDrunen's discussion of the image of God in Adam, but nothing really major. Primarily the disagreement lies in the application of Natural Law, namely in the Two Kingdoms and how Scripture fits into Natural Law.

VanDrunen seems to argue that Natural Law is governing of the civil or secular kingdom, and the Special Revelation is the governing of the spiritual kingdom or the church in particular. At least that is how Frame sees it and Frame disagrees with this point. I am not quite sure that is a fair representation of VanDrunen, but it is the representation he gets in the book. In the end, Frame just does not see a biblical distinction of Two Kingdoms. Dividing the religious and the civil (or secular) is rejected by Frame. He argues that even political matters have spiritual aspects. He gives an example of a political ruler who is evil and tyrannical. That ruler idolizes the state and is out for his own gain and pride. Thus, he is committing spiritual sins. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom are listed and their false worship a reason for their evil. Thus, Frame believes that there are not two realms, but rather only one. Although I think it is debatable whether VanDrunen is speaking of realms or rather rule. VanDrunen never denies that unbelievers are guilty for rejecting Christ and asserting themselves. In my understanding VanDrunen argues rather for things that are common or simply human, which includes then a natural law from the image of God, and by the way from God, and then another set that is distinctively Christian. And in world that includes both believers and unbelievers the distinctively Christian cannot be imposed on activities that are simply human. One can expect your plumber to live by Natural Law, but not fix your sink to the glory of God. I am over simplifying but that seems to me to be part of the argument.

Frame runs into problems on page 135 in my opinion. He states, "It either comes from the wisdom of God or the wisdom of the world, and these are antagonistic to one another (I Cor. 1:20-21)." This is the sharp distinction that Transformationalists posit in their rejection of Two Kingdoms. The wisdom of the world is wrong and must be replaced by the wisdom of God. But Frame on the same page backtracks when he examines the line of Cain. "That is not to say that everything in Cainite culture was bad. . . . Music and Metalworking are certainly good activities. But these activities should have been done to the glory of God, within the family of God." Here is part of the problem I think Two Kingdoms avoids. If it is of the wisdom of the world it is bad. Cain's line includes many things that then should be rejected as bad. Metalwork and music among them. In VanDrunen's model metalwork and music are simply human activities and so can be learned even from unbelievers.

Frame briefly touches on the main exegetical debate, in my opinion, the covenant with Noah. VanDrunen argues here is a covenant with all mankind. Noah's covenant is not religious or for the church only such as the covenant with Abraham. Rather this one includes a sign common to all man (the rainbow), blessings for all mankind (no more flood), and rules for social behavior and justice (capital punishment for murder). Frame counters that the only family alive was Noah's and thus it is not with humans in general, but with the church. He points out the sacrifice made by Noah and how that was a specifically religious act. And while the blessings are for the world in general, Frame argues this is true with all the covenants of the Bible. Thus, it is of the same nature as Abraham's covenant. Although Frame does not account for the presence of at least one clear unbeliever in Ham. One's understanding of Genesis 9 seems rather foundational for the difference between the Transformationalist and the Two Kingdom-ist (if I can make up a word).

Frame's problem is not with Natural Law, but with two kingdoms. Frame admits a distinction between Church and State, but not one between Christ and Culture (pg.146). Frame does point out that VanDrunen should have dealt more with the suppression of truth in unrighteousness of Romans 1, which is a fair point. VanDrunen did mention it, but never really goes into detail. In light of Frame's main objection being to the Two Kingdoms it would have been more helpful if Frame and critiqued Living in God's Two Kingdoms rather than the defense of Natural Law. But the publication date of both books made that impossible. Still this chapter made the debate appear to be one of application of an agreed upon Biblical principle of Natural Law. Hardly the cause of such division as we see across the Reformed world today.

Escondido Theology Chapter 3

Frame moves on to R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Again the tone is quite upset, and one can easily see the complaint about the Absolutizing nature of Escondido theology rather easily in this book. In fact, it is a much more effective criticism here than with Horton who walked back the title of the book in the first few pages. Clark's book revolves around the Quest of Illegitimate Certainty or Experience, and there is no walking it back or toning it down.

Interestingly, Frame often makes the claim that the Escondido Theology is done by historians rather than theologians. This critique seems unfair, but again with Clark's book, it might actually be true.

Clark attempts to hold forth the Confessions as the only legitimate ground for the church. Where they are silent, so too should we be silent, and where they speak, we must speak. Sounds good in theory. However, I agree with Frame that Clark fails at his own system and really falls down into a subjectivism and then makes it the absolute model for being "reformed". For example, Clark believes it is illegitimate for churches to require a certain belief on the days of creation despite the fact that the Westminster does say "in the space of six days". But Clark then goes on to state that churches ought to have two services every Sunday despite it never showing up in any confession, and they ought to sing only the words of Scripture despite that never showing up in a Confession. Clark does try to argue that it is a legitimate inference from the Regulative Principle of Worship, which does show up in Confessions, but then could we not also argue Six Day Creation is a legitimate inference from every confessions' discussion about creation and then also the 4th commandment? Of course we could. Frame does not use these exact examples, but does point out the inconsistent application of Clark's own view. It ends up being nothing more than the absolutizing of Clark's subjective take on things. Frame tends to focus in on things like Clark's rejection of Transformationalism, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Confessions, neither is the Two Kingdoms view (which Clark never directly argues for, but Frame believes is assumed in the book). Rather than viewing this as a place of liberty and any attempt to demand one over another as a Quest for Illegitimate Certainty, Clark views Transformationalism as part of the problem in the reformed churches today.

Frame spends most of the time defending himself, as Clark does quote Frame occasionally and basically labels him as unreformed. Most of it revolves around Epistemology, and the discussion in this section is interesting. I do think Frame has placed his finger on a troubling aspect of Clark's thought. Clark believes that there is a "degree of falsehood in human speech about God" (pg. 130 in Clark's Confessions and pg. 98 in Frame's Escondido). Here I side more with frame, that while human speech can never full exhaust God nor explain it in the way God knows things, I do not think that implies "a degree of falsehood". We can truly know, I believe. And if there is always falsehood in our speech about God such as "God created the heavens and the earth" then we cannot truly know what is true and what is false. I may not know exactly how God accomplished it or fully understand the power behind such a magnificent act, I do not think that makes the statement even slightly false.

I don't always agree with Frame in his critique. Clark I believe is right in the beauty and joy of strict Confessional subscription. Frame here worries that it limits too much, but I disagree and side more with Clark. Why Clark would then go on and advocate a new Confession to be written is beyond me. If the old Confessions are not wrong, and it is so wonderful to adhere to, I see no need for a new one. Still, Frame here tends to lump strict subscription into the dangerous Absolutizing tendency of Escondido theology, but I don't think they are the same thing.

In the overall scheme of things, Clark's book does not address a large portion of the Escondido Theology. It revolves around the main point of Absolutizing a certain tradition, mainly the 16th and 17th century (and only portions of that!). Discussing anything outside of that tradition is not Reformed or illegitimate. This makes people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones unreformed. Clark's book is narrow in its focus, but I think Frame does a descent job in criticizing it.

Escondido Theology Chapter 2

The meat of Frame's critique starts with a look at Michael Horton's Christless Christianity. Horton has a response out, but Horton is reviewed three different times.

Frame immediately takes umbrage with the title. Frame sees the Christless as part of the absolutizing tendency he finds so bad at Escondido. This is all in spite of the fact that Horton immediately states that the title is an overstatement and it is more of a direction rather than a current condition in the evangelical church. Frame notes the clarification, but it does little to lessen the criticism.

Frame takes a few things in Horton's book differently than I did. Horton not wanting to "translate" the gospel is something that Frame finds repugnant. I took this to mean that Horton was against trying to be hip and trendyin how we deal with Scripture and our attempts to make the gospel pleasing by hiding the bitter and unpleasant truths, not as a refusal to apply it or make it understandable or even in modern languages. Perhaps here Frame has legitimate gripe about Horton not being clear enough in defining terms, but as Horton points out in the response, Frame makes a large complaint out of something that Horton does not really believe.

I think a lot of the differences between Frame and Horton can best be illustrated with Joel Osteen, who is a frequent target in Horton's book. Ask yourself, do you believe that Osteen and his teachings are beyond the pale of Chrsitianity? Are they Christless? Frame's answer in this book is a clear no, Osteen is within the pale of Christianity. Horton's is a pretty emphatic yes, Osteen is beyond the pale (or at least trending that way fast). I agree with Horton on this one. And so does the Library of Congress for the record since they place Osteen's book in the Self Help section not the Christianity section. But let me illustrate further with some of Frame's discussion.

On Pg. 45 Frame quotes Horton claiming Osteen is "law-lite" and an "upbeat moralism" with "no justification". Frame likens this emphasis of Horton on using the Law to condemn with the Lutheran controversy about whether or not the law should ever be preached to believers. He accuses Horton of not using the Third use of the law for believers and a lack of teaching on sanctification. But more than that Frame defends Osteen even further stating that Scripture does tell us how to be happy in this world referencing the blessings promised and particularly Josh 1:8. Not directly stated, but implied is that Osteen's preaching One's Best Life Now is therefore a biblical concept and not outside the pale of Christianity. Perhaps even something Frame thinks Horton could learn a little from it.

This ties into Frame's major problem with Horton (in my opinion) and it comes from this statement made in Horton's Christless Christianity:
The central message of Christianity is not a worldview, a way of life, or a program for personal and societal change , it is a gospel (pg.105).
This is Horton's main point. Preaching then should primarily be the announcement of Christ and the retelling of His gospel. After all it is the central message. Horton does not deny Scripture speaks on finances and marriage and other things, but it is not the main point. This accounts for Horton's view of Two Kingdoms, worship, and preaching all of which Frame critiques in this chapter. Frame rather responds:
"the Bible presents a a worldview that is utterly unique among all the religions and philosophies of the world . . . And if the gospel is to be presented to them [unbelievers] clearly, they must understand that it presupposes a way of thinking about the world that is unique in the history of thought. (pg. 51).
Thus, the debate. Is the worldview contained in the Bible central to being able to understand the gospel and present it rightly? And is that worldview a complete and all encompassing worldview? Frame unashamedly asserts that the gospel then is a program of personal and societal change (same page). I wish Frame had spent all of the chapter discussing this one central point. Upon it all seems to hinge. Rather, he goes for the laundry list approach. This discussion was far too short.

Frame's great weakness in this chapter is related to what I described about the title. Frame constantly points out Horton backing off of generalizations. Frame wants to argue that all the difference is a matter of emphasis, and it is hard to condemn an emphasis. Frame says Horton is too much on justification, although Horton speaks on sanctification, which is read as Horton backing off and only an emphasis. Horton speaks of the centrality of the gospel, but admits Scripture teaches about finances, thus, it is just a difference of emphasis. It seems a little to me like Frame fails to grasp two things in relation to this. One, is that this is popular writing. Horton is not trying to enumerate every possible exception or be scholastic in his treatment of stuff. Some leeway must be given in this type of writing. Two, a persons emphasis can be unhealthy and easily lead to heresy. In fact, a case can be made that Christlessness does indeed begin with a misplaced emphasis in many cases. Emphasis on "do this and do that" can indeed be interpreted by many as works righteousness, and indeed might be. Emphasis on "do this for earthly blessings" can similarly be understood as self centered and works righteousness. It may be a matter of emphasis, but unhealthy emphases can be rightly condemned.

Oddly enough Andrew Sandlin breaks into the book here with an addendum. It is rather jarring, and frankly of little use. Sandlin restates what we just read and by so doing gives the impression Frame was too wordy and needs him to organize it. He quotes some OT examples in favor of Frame, and that is about it. Not needed. Any time you have quotations from your own book only a few pages from the actual occurrence of the quote, something has gone wrong.

Overall, I found Frame helpful in setting the question as whether or not the worldview of the Bible has to be presupposed to understand the gospel, but I wished the question discussed at greater length. I also tend to agree with Horton about the state of modern evangelicism and in that emphasis can be condemned as leading down a Christless path.

Escondido Theology Chapter 1

The opening chapter is entitled The Escondido Theology, which one would expect. Frame is going to lay out the theology of those whom he will be criticizing and then showing us where he thinks it goes wrong in the rest of the chapters. Well, not exactly. Frame does make it a full three paragraphs before slipping into all out attack mode. And the book suffers quite a bit from this sort of thing. One gets the distinct impression that Frame is building a straw man and then burning him to the ground. Without stating his opponents views positively first, the reader has little familiarity to understand the level of antagonism shown in this opening (and following) chapter. Establishing that he understands it, can state it in its best light, and interact fairly with it would have gone a long way to making the chapter more convincing. But we must push past this methodology and search for substance in spite of the tone.

It is about the 4th paragraph where Frame calls the Escondido bunch Lutherans for their law/gospel emphasis. In fact, it appears a lot of what Frame wishes to decry is what I think he would characterize as a Lutheranizing of the Reformed Tradition, and then the absolutizing of that tendency. Frame points out the Law/Gospel emphasis and the Two kingdoms theology as two Lutheran aspects that are prominent in Escondido. This leads to a few more of his criticisms: the Rule and Blessings over all of life (or lack thereof) and church centered piety. To this is added what Frame believes to be a reading out of all other views as non-reformed. He cites a few examples, but a later chapter deals in great detail about that subject. But it is clear that Frame believes that the Escondido theologians have tried to make their view of the Reformation the only acceptable view of the reformation. This not only reads Frame out of the Reformed camp, but goes against a lot of what Frame stands for in theological investigation.

Interestingly enough Frame provides support to my thesis that a lot of the difference in Transformationalism and Two Kingdoms has to do with one's view of End Times. Frame critics the Escondido Theology as "amillennialism on steroids". In this I tend to agree with Frame, but I think I would put it more as Consistent Amillennialism. The question then becomes whether or not Amillennialism is biblical. But then again, why cannot these two both exist as confessional? No reformed confession I know of forces one to take a stand on Millennialism. But Frame focuses that section instead on the preference of a lot of Escondido authors to prefer the "pilgrim" language of the Bible. This section is a bit unfair and seems unnecessary if you are not going go into depth about the End Times. Frame probably should have left it out.

At one point Frame also tracks the Westminster Philadelphia thought and where it splits off into Escondido Thought. This is probably the most helpful section of first chapter. He links the Escondido thought to Merideth Kline. He points out the influence Kline had over the others, cites some disagreements from Frame's time as professor, and how the new hires filled out the roster of WSC as univocal in favor of Kline's arguments. On the other hand he speaks of WTS as descending from Abraham Kuyper through Cornelius Van Til. With the influence of Van TIl, he then goes to the next generation. This is where Frame makes me a bit nervous. He cites positively the development of Theonomy and R.J.Rushdooney and then onto Greg Bashen. In a later chapter Frame adds Norman Shepherd to that list all in a positive light. Kline apparently opposed all those developments. So do I, although that does not mean I agree with Kline, but does give us insight in the reviewer. It also brings to mind the statements Van Drunen makes in Living In God's Two Kingdoms where he comments twice that if you have a Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith, you will prefer the Two Kingdoms theology. Frame seems to accidentally support that thesis in linking WTS to Shepherd and Theonomy.

In the end, it is a little unfair to pick at Frame in the first chapter. Almost everything he sets out here will be brought up again and dealt with in more detail. So the lack of detail and the broad generalizations made in this chapter are going to be fleshed out in later chapters. This is the hook, and Frame means for us to follow him down into the war zone. So down we must go.

John Frame's The Escondido Theology - part 1

Okay, so my curiosity got the better of me, and I purchased The Escondido Theology by John Frame. Since I am sort of publicly working through the 2 Kingdoms idea and trying to figure out why 2 Kingdoms and Transformationalists seem to hate each other so much, I might as well review Frame's book as I go.

The book as a whole is set up as reviews of several books by men from Westminster Seminary California. All professors except one which is a review of former student, now blogger, Jason Stellman. You may have noticed reviews of Frame's book popping up such as this official rejection by WSC and this unofficial one by D.G. Hart Expect more. It is that kind of book.

To show how serious this fight is this book has an introduction by George Grant, a foreword by Gary DeMar, a "review" (second foreword by Andrew Sandlin, a publisher's preface and an author's preface. This book in short is a declaration of war. Frame's tone is usually rather hostile, as is Sandlin's who adds an addendum in a chapter as well as the foreword. Grant stays more positive, but this book hits hard against the Two Kingdom view. It is quite clear that Frame and the others he gathers around him do not view Two Kingdoms as something confessionally allowable as I do, and clearly not something that is Reformed or even Biblical. It is nothing more than failing to apply the Bible to life, and a stubborn refusal to develop a biblical worldview against the Bible's own pleas.

You are going to want to read this book (or at least my review) because Frame comes out swinging. While I don't always agree with Frame's criticism, it is sort of like a car wreck. You just cannot look away because you want to see what happens next. And sometimes Frame puts his finger on some very good questions and points.

Next time chapter 1!

Reformed Scholasticism - a book and a question or two

I just finished reading a new book by Willem J. Van Asselt, called Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. It is just coming out and has been highly touted by many around the blogosphere including some good friends whom I respect. However, upon reading the book I was highly disappointed.

First, the book does not adequately explain what is not Scholasticism. He defines scholasticism, but never lets us know of anything that is not scholasticism. He does give a few brief titles, but no definitions and not drawing distinctions between the two (or more positions). By not doing so, I felt I did not have a good introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. This is highly ironic when one understands Scholasticism as a method of using dialectics and presenting objections and answering them.

Second, part of the book tried to give a historical progression, but fails in this. He gives examples from each of his three eras. But since he never talked about dissent or the state of scholasticism, one cannot trace any movement or growth in Scholasticism. Disappointing.

I do feel I know more about Reformed Scholasticism than I did going into the book, but I was hoping for a lot more.

What I would rather talk about though is the seeming acceptance of Reformed Scholasticism almost uncritically. It is almost as if Reformed Scholasticism is having a bit of a revival right now. Now, I can agree it was tarred and feathered for too long and unjustly, but that does not mean it is great, or even good or even desirable.

Van Asselt admits up front in the book he holds Reformed Scholasticism in a positive light. His historical treatment begins in 1560, which is late second generation reformation. It is true that in many ways the Reformation was an outright rejection of Scholasticism. The vast majority of the First Reformers were humanists and deliberately rejected Scholasticism. Indeed they were committed humanists and went to the Scripture for their theology. They focused on grammar and linguistic issues as they developed the theology of the Protestant Reformation eschewing the Scholastic argumentation and teaching. Zwingli and the Zurich bunch were humanists and hated Scholasticism, and not just the excess and the theology. They did not use the methodology either. Nor did Oecolampadius in Basel, nor Haller in Bern. Calvin's Institutes looks nothing like the Institutes of Turretin. Because Calvin did use the Scholastic method. Why are we not wondering and looking more closely at the rejection of Scholasticism by the fathers of the Reformation?

Even if we grant that Reformed Scholasticism changed from Romanist Scholasticism so that it was in service to the text of Scripture as Burnett convincingly argues, it does not remove all concern. Does not method affect content?

Let me illustrate. The Heidelberg Catechism (non-Scholastic document. Van Asselt calls it a Synthetic) is vastly different from the Westminster Catechism (more of a Scholastic influenced document). One of the complaints of Reformers about Scholasticism is that it was speculative, and not practical. The Heidelberg starts off by pointing out the end. It starts where it plans to finish, with Christ and him crucified as our only comfort and hope. You can see that point running throughout the document. You will not find discussions of God's nature or man's chief end in the non-scholastic Heidelberg. The Westminster is going to be a much more thorough theologically, touching the points that the Heidelberg just ignores. Is any of that related to the Scholastic influence of many of the Puritans?

Another example this one from Basel. Oecolampadius was the first reformer there. He was a humanist. He wrote a commentary on Daniel where commenting on 3:24-25 (The three in the furnace), he unashamedly claims the fourth figure is Christ himself. This seems to be the point of the text for Oecolampadius although he does mention that the miracle is done by the true God as opposed to false gods of Babylon. Even the application is Christ centered.
John Jacob Grynaeus, a late 1570's head pastor of Basel who brought the town back from Lutheranism, also wrote on Daniel. Grynaeus was much more scholastic in methodology. He rejects the fourth figure as Christ and spends time discussing efficient, secondary, and final causes of the miracle (Aristotle), and unbelievers. Next is Polanus, who was 1599 and thoroughly Scholastic. His discussion on Daniel included long theological discussions of angels, for he too rejected the figure as Christ, broke things into points and sub point on miracles and angels and the like. A trip into what early reformers might have called speculative theology.

I am not saying I am out right against Reformed Scholasticism, but that just maybe we ought to stop and look at this thing a little bit more

A bevy of book reviews

A bevy of book reviews

It has been sometime since I posted a book review, so here are a few.

Christless Christianity by Michael Horton
This book is a great read. Horton’s style is one of smooth reading for the most part. Any pastor should not have any trouble at all. Laymen will occassionaly wonder at side tracks where Gnosticism and other such concepts are brought in without a lot of explanation. Still, even with that minor note, the book is great. It is a spot on critique of the American Church. In fact, the book has a wonderful and devastating look at Joel Osteen and many like him. This book profoundly made me stop and look at my own ministry to make sure I was holding up Christ showing I think that Horton does not just critique, but also extols the importance and place of Jesus Christ. He tears down, but he does not fail to build up and offer the only comfort in life and in death, Jesus Christ. I do not agree with absolutely everything in this book. One can see the hobby horses of Westmisnter West if you know what to look for, but mostly this book is just a good solid reminder of our absolute need for Jesus, and our propensity to replace Jesus with something a little more palatable to the Old Man in us all. I recommend this book to all. Get this book.

I will be reviewing the companion volume: Gospel-Driven Life when I finish it.

Martin Bucer the Forgotten Hero of the Reformation by David Lawerence
I hope that you all have heard of Martin Bucer. He is getting a bit of a revival these days. I saw this book on several walls of recommended reading, so I gave it a try. I was more than a little disappointed. Now this review is going to come off as harsh, but mostly because the book violated a few of my pet peeves. I did learn a great deal about Martin Bucer reading this bio. The book spoke not only of his life, but of his theology. The book is well written and a fairly easy read. So, it is not like the book was garbage. But I have these things against it. First, it really did put Bucer on a pedestal and basically played apologist for Bucer. That is not always a good thing. Bucer did some things that are not so good like his support of the divorce of Philip of Hesse. The author clearly believed Bucer’s view on other subjects were far superior to other Reformed views. This is something that also should have just been explained rather than championed. A little cheerleading is understandable, but this much was over the top. It led to occassional attacks on other reformers like Zwingli and Bullinger. Needless and turned me off a great deal. Second, it would off hand throw out things that you would want explained and then not explain them leaving me to wonder if it was just a made up point to try and improve Bucer as a role model. One such example was the assersion of the constant opposition and out right hostile stance of Henry Bullinger. This was never explained nor proved, and it was a piece of information I had never heard before? What caused this feud if it existed? Such details are important. Yet they went unprovided. Perhaps because it was better just to cast Bullinger in a bad light than actual put the two positions side by side. Who knows, but I would have liked to learn more about that point. Third, I think that a little more time on the implications of Bucer’s positions on the rest of the Reformation would have been nice. A lot was made of the Bucer-Calvin connection, and probably rightly so. Yet, a drawing out of this influence and its results could have been nice. The same goes for Bucer’s time in England. What happened to the friends like Cheek and Ridley that were mentioned? Did Bucer’s view play a role in the Puritan trouble of later English history. Also what happened in Strasborg or the other places he helped Reform? Those would have been some nice details.
In the end, I am unaware of a better Bucer biography. They are rare. But that does not mean that this is the be all; end all biography of Bucer. Clearly there is still a market for such a book.

Ten Great Feuds: That changed the World by Colin Evans
This book is good, but don’t go into it with the expectations raised by the secondary title. There is no discussion about how any of these feuds changed the world, and only about two had throw away sentences speaking about a possible world shaping influence. Most of them clearly did not shape the world in anyway whatsoever. So if you don’t have that expectation going into the book, then the book is great. The chapters are not too long, and divided so reading is easy. It is written interestingly making sure you are invested into each person in the feud. Then the feud is unfolded for you. The feuds include the Hatfields and the McCoy’s, Stalin versus Trotsky, and even King Charles versus Parliament. I don’t want to give away all 10, but most of them you probably don’t know all the details about, and they are fun reading. So if you want to bone up on your feuding, then this is the book to get it done. I enjoyed it a great deal. I never realized how much blood was spilled in the Hatfield McCoy feud, but I do now. Nor did I realize what a brat and jerk Robert Kennedy was (LBJ versus Robert Kennedy) What more needs to be said.

A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State by Charles Freeman
Freeman continues his assault on Christianity in his book A.D. 381 (see Closing of the Western Mind: the rise of Faith and the fall of Reason). For those of you who don’t know 381 is the date of the First Council of Constantinople. Basically this council reaffirmed the council of Nicaea and added to the creed a little bit, making sure the divinity of the Holy Spirit was understood as well. Well, Freeman tries to argue that this is the closing of all intellectual debate and free speech and the beginning of an overbearing monotheistic state. A point he fails to make despite his constant misinterpretation and omission of many important historical events. He makes strange statements trying to downplay the importance of Nicaea, and talks of Nicaea’s comeback with Athanasius. But when you do the math the “Comeback” is less than 15 years after the arrival. Add that to the fact that Alexander, the main opponent of Arius, was bishop before that, and it is hard to imagine it went away at all. While it may be true that the state was monotheistic from that point on, it is weird to see how he has such a hostile attitude to it. Arius and those guys wanted a monotheistic state as well, just a heretical one.
In short, Freeman argues that Emperor Theodosius imposed Nicaea on Constantinople and enforced it, and that the church would never have come to that conclusion. The bishops had little to no part in actually coming up with the creed. This led to religion proclaiming “certainties” which destroyed philosophical thought, started the war with science, and a host of other things that are just as stupid as they sound. Of course all church histories are unreliable and all histories written by people who do not believe the bible are better and thus right. It is really sad that this stuff poses as scholarship. It is more screeds and hatred than anything else.

More on Recovering the Reformed Confessions

I want to respond more indepth to Dr. Clark’s book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. I do want to stress some of the book’s positive attributes, but I still think his section against 6-day creation creates in the book a fatal flaw that ends up undercutting his main point.

There are some really great things in this book. First and foremost is the writing. I think Dr. Clark is a clear and accessible writer. He is easy to read, to understand, and the book has an enjoyable tone and pace. This is not easily done.

Second, the premise that we as reformed churches need to recover the wonderful documents that are our heritage is true. We need to not be afraid of speaking confessionally. He puts his finger on a real problem and is right to address the idea. We are children of a heritage, and we ought not be nervous nor afraid of it.

Third, one can tell from reading this book that having a Church History class from Dr. Clark would be a lot of fun. Anyone who quotes from John Thomson is okay in my book, and Dr. Clark does it twice. His view on Illegitimate Religious Experience and his application of that to the Great Awakening is right on target. The PCA would do particularly well to listen to that point of advice.

Fourth, one has to admire his willingness not only to point out problems, but to suggest solutions. Ways to recover the Reformed Confessions and Heritage in this modern culture. I don’t particularly agree with all of them, but it makes a good book that does more than critique, but suggest solutions.

Fifth, the section on Illegitimate Religious Experience is also well done and applicable to us today. In fact, it might actually be more applicable to the modern evangelical situation than the Religious Knowledge. It was helpful for me.

Yet, I still have this against the book. In his section about Illegitimate Religious Knowledge he puts in 6-Day creation. Leave aside the debate about it for a moment. This commits Dr. Clark to saying that those things that are not included in the Reformed Confessions are things one cannot be certain about. Thus, to be certain about extra-confessional material is illegitimate. Fine. If that is what one wishes to hold it is a defendable position. The problem is that Dr. Clark is not consistent to that point throughout the rest of his book.

Let me give an example. Dr. Clark goes on to argue that our knowledge of God is analogical (staring on page 123). He attempts to argue that this is part of the warp and woof of the confessions embedded within the creator-creature distinction. This point is highly debated most famously in the Clark-Van Til arguments. This indicates (not stated in the book, but one can read between the lines) that Dr. Scott Clark would argue that Dr. Gordon Clark is not confessional at all. Now where is analogical knowledge spelled out in the creeds? How is that not an extra-confessional issue? How is 6-Day creation illegitimate religious certainty and analogical knowledge is okay? Dr. Scott Clark tries to ground analogical knowledge in the confession in WCF 7.1 “distance between God and the creature”, but that is a pretty big stretch. As is the appeal to the phrase “as it were” in the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 27 about the Providence of God. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I am not against analogical knowledge. IN FACT, I think the biblical discussion of analogical knowledge is one of the best in the entire book. It is clear, cogent, and powerful. One does not need to be aquatinted with the debate at all to see the argument and understand what is going on. I just think it makes Clark inconsistent in this particular book because of his stance on 6-Day Creation.

Dr. Clark also argues for exclusive singing of Inspired Words (not quite exclusive psalmnody). His point here is that the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is in the creeds and the RPW requires only the words God inspired. I am going to deal with that more tomorrow, but I have to again ask, how can 6-Day creation be illegitimate to be certain about, but not singing hymns is okay to be certain about? It just does not make sense. The same thing could be said about the second service on Lord’s Day section in this book.

My ultimate point is this: Dr. Clark argues that things outside of the confession cannot be used a boundary markers of Reformed church and then argues for several such boundary markers that are outside the confessions. That is my real problem with the book. When this book goes into a second printing it would be greatly improved in its own internal consistency if it simply removed its discussion about 6-Day creation completely. That way he never forces himself to argue that extra-confessional things are illegitimate to be certain about, and then his suggestions, which are all just as debatable whether or not they are confessional or extra confessional as 6-Day creation, do not conflict with his previous arguments.

Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions is a good book, but I do have to take issue with something he said in his second chapter: the chapter about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Basically, Clark’s argument is that where the Confessions are silent it is a point of liberty and those who wish to add (specifically in this case) 6/24 creation as a test of religious orthodoxy are illegitimate. The chapter briefly covers to other things that are extra confessional or anti-confessional: Theonomy and basically the Federal Vision/Shepherdism. The largest section is directed at 6/24 hour day creation proponents. It seems clear to me that the RCUS in particular is in view and indeed we are specifically cited as the only NAPARC denomination to not grant liberty on this point and we appear in a footnote. I will be addressing why Clark is wrong on this point.

Full disclosure moment. Dr. Clark was formerly in the RCUS and left on mostly amicable terms. Dr. Clark now teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary California which is no longer supported by the RCUS mostly for their non-6/24 hour stance on creation.

Points of disagreement

1. Clark starts by stating that proponents of the 6/24 hour day view of creation have always been unable to show a theological reason for holding to this view. He also claims that this stance has "little to do with the Reformed Confessions" (pg. 48). I could not disagree more. This has a lot to do with the Reformed Confessions and theological reasons abound. Creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th day is the foundation of the 4th Commandment. The 4th Commandment is covered in Confessions. What on earth does the Heidelberg mean in Question 92 when it is reciting the law including the basis that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." Surely then the meaning of the word "day" has confessional implications, and is not restricted to Genesis 1 as an extra-confessional debate. What about Question 103 where the catechism states in its explication of the 4th commandment "especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church . . ." Again the troubling word "day" appears. The Westminister also states "within the space of six days". Surely then it is considered a confessional matter. Yet, Clark waves this off as a simple rejection of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, not a pronouncement upon the days. Yet there is more confessional situations at stake here. The articles of the nature of Scripture are at stake. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession requires us to "reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule [Scripture]". Is that arguably what is going on with the statement about creation? Article 7 also speaks of not respecting the writings of men above Scripture no matter how holy they are, which presumably ought to include the writing of scientists as well as theologians. And it states we ought to believe all that it is in the Scripture. What about the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 that states Scripture is clear and even the unlearned can understand it. Is that true of the GapTheory or Framework? Or is the clear teaching of Scripture 6/24 hour days. And what of WCF 1.9 that says Scripture ought to interpret Scripture and the meaning is one. Can the meaning be one but the message from the ministers be four fold as the PCA would have it on creation? Or WCF 1.10 that says Scripture is the supreme judge of all things. Does that not put it over science? Should I not believe the words of God even if science is against me?
2. Clark dismisses the argument of David Hall and others that point to WCF 4.1 and the "in the space of six days" statement as addressing a different question. That was to keep out Instantaneous Creation and thus has no bearing upon Day-Age or Framework theories of the day. Yet, does not this argument work against Clark as well? The divines simply did not say "God did not create instantly." Rather they stated it was six days. A confessional marker. Also, if what question they were answering is important then is the Confession not applicable to any questions that come after them? Evolution is a challenge to the gospel that is well after the confessions. Does it mean we are all at liberty? Or does it meant that it was not specifically rejected in the Confessions because those views are not yet invented? It seems to me this argument could cut either way, Clark just makes it cut his way and ignores the rest.
3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past. He is clearly attempting to draw a parallel between the two. Clark wants to argue that using Scriptrue as a text book for science is bad theology and science. First, no one is saying Scripture is a science book. Second, all people are saying is that where the Bible does speak it must be obeyed. Comparing Genesis 1’s repetition of a 6/24 hour formula for creation to the geocentric world debates is a long stretch. It is more an attempt to smear than a real argument.
4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement (pg.50). If the requirement for things to be considered confessional is that they are exegetically based then we ought to apologize for the Canons of Dort as the Arminians were exegetical. They were just really really bad exegetes of Scripture. And thus they were condemned. Framework and Day Age and Gap Theory are also really really bad exegetical examples. And they are also clearly examples of letting science control the exegesis, which does run into some confessional problems as noted above in point 1.
5. Clark states this is not a debate between "two religions . . . not even between two different hermeneutical principles, but rather a debate over the application of those principles and specific exegetical applications" (pg.61). Clark here makes a good point that it is not two different religions. But does the RCUS say that if you believe in Theistic Evolution or Old Earth that you are not Reformed? No. Is this chapter supposed to be about who is Reformed and who is not? No. The chapter was about Illegitimate Religious Certainity. The question then is can we be certain about 6/24 hour day creation. And to that the RCUS has answered yes. Clark has changed the question a little to make the RCUS seem to be saying something we are not. We are not disagreeing with the theology, piety, and practice of prior men in history who may have held to an Old Earth. We are simply saying that one can understand God’s word and what it teaches in Genesis 1. Science does not have the ability to change the words. I do want to point out that I disagree with Clark that it is not about differing hermenuetical principles. How one can use a Grammatical-Historical approach and come away with anything other than 6/24 hour days is beyond me. I do believe then it is about different hermeutical approaches.

Now I believe what is really motivating Dr. Clark here to try and smack down the RCUS and any other Creationists who stand with us is about protecting men like B.B. Warfield, Machen, and A.A. Hodge as Reformed and true. They would fail this test about 6/24 hour day creation. And fairly clearly Clark thinks any marker that allows in Seventh Day Adventists and keeps out Warfield is Illegitimate (pg.49). Of course no one is trying to let Adventists in as if the Confessions do not exist. It is for Warfield and Princeton that Clark strives. That is why Clark devotes 14 pages to the extra-confessional liberty he believes ought to exist and only 4 to the anti-confessional position of Theonomy and 4 to the Covenant Moralism which he also thinks contradicts the Confessions. I will address this issue in a separate post.

The Team that Changed Baseball

I just finished reading The Team that Changed Baseball by Bruce Markusen. It is about the 1971 Pirates and argues that they finished the job of integration started by Jackie Robinson. The book is a nice review of the World Championship run, and taught me quite a few things that I did not know.

However, the book suffers a little from lack of constant focus on his theme. The beginning of the book is great as it shows the unity of the team and its racial mix of blacks, latinos, and whites. It shows how Bill Mazaroski helped teach defense to Dave Cash, which actually costs Maz his job at second base. But as the description of the season wears on Markusen loses sight of trying to prove that the 71 Pirates changed baseball. He does a nice job of discussing the season, and does occassionally mention the outbursts of Clemente or Doc Ellis, and how everyone got along anyway, but if you are reading the book to find out how this team changed baseball you are over two thirds of the way through before Markusen really proves his case. It is in the chapter on September where you see that on September 1, 1971 the Pirates fielded the first all minority line-up in MLB history. All 9 positions were a minority. Here is where the heart of his thesis lies and he discusses how each player reacted and even tries to figure you if the coach, Danny Murtaugh, did it on purpose or not, and whether or not that improves the theory of the book. He talks of the quota system in baseball, and the sterotyping of Latinos as good defensive players and blacks as big hitters being shattered by the Pirates. It is an interesting case and one that probably ought to be discussed more when integration is discussed in baseball.

The book is still good if you are reading to learn more about the Pirates run to the Pennant and World title. One of my favorite little stories in the book is about catcher Manny Sanguillen and pitcher of crucial Game 5 Nellie Briles. Game 5 was the swing game as the series was tied 2-2. Briles was a surprise starter, and had pitched 6 shut out innings when he had a disagreement with Sanguillen. Sanguillen wanted to throw mostly sliders and change ups in the inning to keep Baltimore off balance. Briles wanted to throw fast balls and shorten the game since the Pirates had a 4 run lead. Sanguillen took offense, since Sanguillen called the game to that point and thought they were doing well. He went back to home plate and refused to put down any signs. The two met on the mound again and Sanguillen said, “I no need signs to catch your junk.” And continued to refuse to put down signs. They played the whole inning without the catcher knowing what was coming. The shut out was intact and Sanguillen was able to catch all of Briles’s “junk”. What a remarkable athlete Sanguillen really was.

I recommend the book, but read it for the drama of the 1971 year and series. I think the argument could be made that the 71 Pirates changed baseball, but this book only makes that argument a couple of times and if you are looking for a book to make that argument then this is not the book for you.

Review: For God and His People

I have finished reading Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigne’s biography of Ulrich Zwingli For God and His People. It is excellent and I highly recommend this book. D’Aubigne is a fantastic historian, and he makes sure we get a thorough look at the reformer of Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli. It is loaded with quotes from the time, although not always cited. The portrait of Zwingli is a man who stood for the Bible and salvation in Christ above all things. Much more so than Luther, Zwingli wanted a return to the Bible. His reforming days are shown and his struggles to change not only Zurich, but also all of Switzerland. We are introduced to many of his reforming friends, so it is also a good book to get glimpse of other reformers too. The book does not fall into mindless praise. It does openly criticize when it feels compelled to do so, although the other at one point explains his reluctance to engage the facts too much in a biography. I personally thought D’Aubigne went a bit too far in his rather harsh treatment of Zwingli’s end when Zwingli argued for war. Not this his assessment of Zwingli making a mistake and even sinning was wrong, but I felt he may have brought it up a few too many times. The information he obtained about the Marburg Colloquy was very interesting. I had not seen the Colloquy discussed in such detail before. I did not know that they had actively kept Zwingli and Luther apart on the first day before the formal Colloquy began. The fear of the two men’s tempers was enough to make sure they did not cross each other too early.

One other slight criticism I had was that the book did not always keep the chronological order. The Marburg Colloquy takes a whole chapter, as it should, but the next chapter actually starts prior to the Colloquy. One has to make sure he reads the dates and keeps the dates straight or one will get a few of the events out of sequence. It does not happen often, but it did a couple of times and I thought it worth noting.

Still, I do recommend this book, which is not very long making it enjoyable and easily readable. It is impossible to read this book and come away with the view that Zwingli is an unimportant figure of the Reformation. Rather this book restores Zwingli to his rightful place as the Father of the Reformed Reformation.

History of the Iconoclastic Controversy

I just finished reading A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy, and it is a very good book. It is not all straight history as he stops to examine the arguments from each side at each period in the conflict, of which he believes there are three. The author, Dr. Edward Martin, clearly favors the Iconophils (lovers of images), but overall is a fairly balanced view and is willing to admit when arguments are good or bad or unanswered. Obviously as someone who is against icons I have some quibbles with some of his review of the argumentation, but still the book is good. I learned a lot of history that I did not before, and Martin makes some excellent points about the increasing dependence of the iconophils on tradition as their authority. Martin even seems to argue that this reliance on tradition is what helps end theological thought in the Eastern Orthodox Church. And by comparing the arguments in the first round with the arguments of the last round, he makes a pretty good case.

The major failure of the book in my opinion is Martin’s removal of what was going on in the western church to the last two chapters of the book as if they were completely divorced, which is what he argues. I think he fails in his understanding of the Carolingian Church and its disregard of icons. He dismisses most of the rejection of the Second Council of Nicaea by the Franks as politically motivated, and I think that is fairly narrow. He also is too dismissive of Claudius of Turin, who he admits is basically a Protestant Reformer a few hundred years out of place. The fairly low rate reaction to Claudius needed to be explored more, and if he had put the goings on in the Western Church side by side with the Eastern Church, then it would have made a different picture. In fact, it probably would have made a picture of the church in the 8th and 9th century that had a majority of its members rejecting icons. Something that is not really taught in church history courses.

Still, that complaint aside, I think the book is good. It is well researched and a pretty easy read. I enjoyed the book and might look for more works by the Dr. Martin.

Book Reviews

Supreme Conflict by Jan Greenburg is an excellent book. It is a great look at all the major events in the life of the Supreme Court from the Reagan Administration to the appointment of Samuel Alito. Greenburg has a lot of inside information that really gives one an inside look. I highly recommend this book if you are interested with one word of caution. You will probably lose a lot of respect for the Supreme Court.

Greenburg keeps her personal views out of this book, which is a nice change of pace. But if I were guessing I think she favors those on the court who moderate it, and as she describes it "have no overarching judicial philosophy." Those include O'Conner, Kennedy, and Souter. The book really makes O'Conner look awful, but clearly it was on accident. The book starts with a glowing account of O'Conner, but it is later revealed that she voted conservative the first few years because Justice Blackman upset her with a caustic remark during conference. Then she began to vote liberal when Scalia was too rough on her during a written dissent. Of course this does not bode well for the first female on the court, but that is never brought up. O'Conner's hypocrisy is not mentioned either as she actually mentioned Justice Thomas by name over a dozen times in one opinion from the court. That was the sort of behavior that she found unacceptable if it was directed at her. The insights this book gives into the thinking of each justice and the work of the court is great, but you will soon realize the court is not such a great place after all.

Holy War by Karen Armstrong, author of A History of God, is absolutely awful. Avoid it at all costs. Armstrong starts off the book by thoroughly demonstrating she knows nothing about Christainity, Islam, or Judaism. Armstrong breaks her own back trying to make Islam into religion of peace. A few examples are worth noting. Armstrong thinks that Mohammed led an unarmed group of people from Medina to Mecca because their "swords were sheathed". Who cares a sword that is not sheathed and does that not make them armed? Of course Jihad is written off as something that Islam abandoned until the Crusades made them have to take it up again. She does admit however that Islam always had a "few token Jihads". What on earth is a "token" Jihad, and why does that not count? The battle of Tours where the Islamic invasion of Europe is written off as "raids" rather than an actual attempt to takeover Europe or France. The source for this claim . . . the fact that Islamic historical records do not discuss it much and because many Islamic people had not liked the climate of Europe. Really this book is that bad.

Young Restless and Reformed - A Puritan Love Affair

I know it has been a while since I commented on the book Young Restless and Reformed, but there is at least one more thing worth discussing. This book is filled with new and interesting ways to be “Reformed”. Whether it be Reformed Baptist, Reformed Independent, Reformed Charismatic, or Reformed Emergent, there is a place for you in this book. There was not a clear tie that binds in my opinion. If so the author did not make it clear enough. However, there was a deep appreciation and love for the Puritans in most of them. Jonathon Edwards is mentioned in every chapter including the Epilogue. Puritanism in general is mentioned in every chapter not counting the Epilogue, and it is mentioned twice as much as Protestantism in general. Obviously Collin Hansen defines Puritanism differently than I do. But, the question remains why the love of the Puritans? I am not saying the Puritans are bad. But, the Heidelberg Catechism is mentioned only twice. The Westminster Confession of faith only six times. Oliver Cromwell is mentioned more than Ulrich Zwingli. The only link between all of these reformed movements is the Puritans.

I have a theory as to why this might be. It is not because of how practical the Puritans might have been or anything good they might have done. It is because the Puritans were not a denomination, and only loosely a movement. Doctrinal distinctive did not exist. You could be a Baptist and a Puritan. You could be a Congregationalist and a Puritan. You could even support charismatic outbreaks and be a Puritan much like Jonathan Edwards did.

Let me expand my point. Edwards, Cromwell, and John Owen were all Congregationalists. John Bunyan was a Baptist. All of these guys are mentioned in the book. One could also add several Presbyterians and Anglicans to this list although they are not mentioned in this book. The point is to be a Puritan is not to be a member of anything other than a broad undefined movement. Church government is unimportant and the sacraments are unimportant. In fact the only thing that seems to be important is a Calvinistic view of salvation and a focus on Christian living. This is exactly what I would say seems to be the glue that connects the Young Restless and Reformed churches and pastors.

This brings me full circle. Is this really Reformed? Is it so important to meet the world where it is that we leave behind so many things, or as the Bible puts it ‘the meat’ of God’s Word? I am not saying that all of the churches in this book are doing that. By no means. I am simply saying that trying to make a connection between these many varied churches and theologies is a mistake. And if we want to put such an emphasis on the Puritans, we need to remember their shortcomings. After all the Puritans failed both in England and in America. An important fact to remember.

Young, Restless and Reformed: A Review

It has been a while since I have done a book review. So I thought I would review Young, Restless, and Reformed by Colin Hansen. This book was very interesting. The premise of the book is that a young Christianity Today writer was intrigued by the fact that his friends were Calvinistic in their theology when demographically they should be part of the Emergent Church movement. So, he decided to travel around and see if this was an exception or part of a growing trend. The book is a fascinating look at the great success that the Reformed movement is having in America today.

That being said, I do have some quibbles with the book. The first is the loose use of the term "Reformed". He generally applies it to anyone who wants it. He briefly mentions the criticism of men like Michael Horton who draw a difference between Reformed and Calvinisitic, especially when it comes to the infant baptism issues. The criticism gets little play and is not really interacted with much. It is a valid point especially considering my next quibble.

The book focuses almost exclusively on those who are non-traditional Reformed. Most of those featured were Baptists (like John Piper and Al Mohler). Charasmatic Calvinists were featured, Emergent Calvinists are in this book. However, very few of the people shown in the book were Presbyterians or Reformed in the Dutch or German traditions. This is part of the great interest the book provides. Look at all the traditions that are featuring prominent Calvinists now. But, one or two should have been traditional Reformed in the mold of the PCA, OPC, or something. Ligon Duncan is in the book several times, but is never really featured. He is more in the book because of his cooperation with these more non-traditional reformed types.

The third quibble is that he does not tie it all together in the end. I hate the way movies today end without real closure. They give you the resolution of the plot, but fail to deliver any follow up or falling action to get technical. I felt the same way about this book. He interviewed all of these people, Calvinist leaders of today, but I could have used one chapter at the end to hear the author’s final thoughts. Even the very brief epilogue just served as a brief interview with yet another Calvinist. I prefer the wrap up. Admittedly that may be a minor point, but it bugged me.

I would also like to point out one thing that is also a negative or a positive depending on how you look at it. This book could not be read in one sitting despite being only 156 pages. It could not be read in a sitting because of how often something was said in the book that made you stop and think. Often it would be something said from the interview, and there would be no follow up on the comment. However, it would just smack me in the face and I would have to put the book down and ponder it for the rest of the day. That is great, but it is also bad. The book should follow up on great thoughts. It really fell outside of what Hansen was doing, so I just had to stop.

Because of this I will be blogging on the many things that made me stop and go "hmmmmm" over the next several days. I do recommend this book to people who are church planting as an encouraging book that Calvinism and Reformed Theology can win people in today’s culture. I would recommend this book to people who want a broader view of the Reformed landscape in today’s culture. I would recommend this book to people who just want a read that engages the mind. A good book worth a look

Another Tyler Biography

I promise to get back to my look at apologetics soon. However, I feel compelled to write a book review of John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Do not let the sub title fool you. This is simply a biography of John Tyler and a very fair one at that. It is much better than the previous Tyler biography I read and reviewed. This biography defends Tyler from the charges of inconsistency and does so very well. He endeavors to defend why Tyler went over to the Whig party and how Tyler still remained true to his beliefs at the same time. Although he does not mind criticizing Tyler as he makes it clear that it was a political mistake for Tyler to do it; however, it was not political inconsistency.

That is what makes this book so great. You follow Tyler through his entire life, not just his presidency or his years in the Senate. The writer, Oliver Perry Chitwood, is very insightful. Of course he is critical of the slavery issue with Tyler, but it is not the main focus of the book as the sub title might imply. As you travel through Tyler’s life and one learns of all the things Tyler did you get the occasional aside from Chitwood that examines Tyler’s actions. One that was particularly fascinating was when Tyler and other famous Virginians responded to the call to revamp the State Constitution. Most of the calls of unfairness in the old Constitution came from present day West Virginia, then still a part of Virginia. Yet Tyler and the rest of the leaders of the state came from the East and depended upon the famous families for support who all lived in the East. Thus, while the Constitution was updated some, it did not address they carefully avoided dealing with the real complaints of the westerners. This kept the people on the other side of the mountains furious, underrepresented in Virginia politics, and created a bitter feeling of being cheated by the leaders of Virginia. Chitwood believes that this failure to bind the west to the east in Virginia as South Carolina had done when she rewrote her Constitution directly cost the South the Civil War. Western Virginia was loyal to the North and made Lee have to fight that area of Virginia rather than have it as a base for the South. West Virginia was soon created and the North had a new ally against the Old Dominion. It was an interesting hypothesis that makes you stop and think. That is happened a lot during this very good biography.

Do not expect Chitwood to be a story telling biographer like a David McCullough, but he is a thought provoking biographer and that to me is more important. If you are interested in John Tyler this is the biography you should read.

Stat One: a horrible attempt at a baseball book

I have not done a book review in some time and since it is baseball season, I need to sneak in this review. I could not help myself on a recent business trip. I picked up Stat One by Craig Messmer. The book examines the best players at all positions excepting pitcher. After taking you through the eight positions and giving you the top ten at every position and a discussion of them, he gives a section to those who are considered multi-position like Pete Rose and Rod Carew. He also takes a short chapter on the Negro League Players and Players before the World Series era beginning in 1903. Those last two sections of people are not eligible to make his Top 100 players of all time list. He then proceeds to produce that list.

Now let me end the suspense and tell you that Mr. Messmer puts Babe Ruth as the best player of all time and his top 3 of all time are all Yankees (Dimaggio, Gehrig, and Ruth). Sadly, he does not deduct for steroid use and Barry Bonds ends up number 5 all time. Needless to say, I hated the book. Let me list a few reasons why.

1. His choices did not make any sense. One can agree with some of his position choices, but in the end they were way too subjective for me. Take First base. We can all agree that Lou Gehrig deserves to be in the number 1 slot for that position. Fine. However, Messmer puts Mark McGwire at 6 and Albert Pujols at 4. He leaves George Sisler out of the top 10 and has him ranked only as a Category 4 player (Category 5 being best). Sisler is a player you may not have heard much about. Sisler once had 257 hits in one season, a record until recently. Sisler hit over .400 multiple times in his career and was over .350 five times. He was over .300 13 different seasons. He is punished in this book because his run production dropped as he got older and for his lack of homerun power. Mark McGwire’s career batting average is .262. Yet, somehow Sisler is not in the top 10 best first baseman and McGwire is? Please. Plus, Pujols is still playing. If Sisler gets punished for failing to produce as he aged, where does that leave Pujols who has yet to face that criteria? That seems unfair, and completely subjective.
2. Bad editing. We can stick with this same category to continue the examples. Messmer states at the end of Sisler’s entry, “He had negligible power, however, and that prevents him from placing in the top five for this position. He does make the top 10, though” (pg.64). Fine. Let us check where he falls in the Top 10 first basemen. Here is the list in descending order. Jim Bottomley, Bill Terry, Eddie Murray, Johnny Mize, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Albert Pujols, Hank Greenberg, Jimmy Foxx, and Lou Gehrig. George Sisler does not appear on the list. You can look up later that George Sisler is the 74 best player of all time and Jim Bottomly the 71st. So, despite the comment that Sisler makes the Top 10, he does not. That stuff should be caught.
3. His main stat. Messmer is of the new sabermetric school that thinks regular stats stupid. However, most sabermetric stats are designed to favor the homerun, and thus the newer players. Messmer is no different. He uses a stat called P/E Average. It is (net runs + net runs + complete bases) / plate appearances. The question is does this really show us how good a player is or how good his team is? Net runs is Runs Batted In + Runs Scored – Homeruns. Now we can take the example of First base since we are already familiar with it. George Sisler may have been one of the best hitters in the game, but he played for the St. Louis Browns, one of the worst teams of all time. Thus, there are less people on base to drive in and less people who are able to drive him in once he was on base. Thus, his Net Runs will be low. Mark McGwire was always on a better team. Yet, ignore that fact for a minute. McGwire can post a better P/E average simply by hitting homeruns. That gives him higher Net Runs despite being on an equally bad team. Thus, McGwire can look like the better player, but actually be a worse hitter. Put him on a better team with the likes of Ricky Henderson, and all of a sudden McGwire can have an extremely high P/E compared to Sisler. But, if Sisler played with Ricky Henderson it would be a different story.
4. He also uses a silly stat that is called MVP share where he gives you points for every vote someone cast for the player for MVP. Since the MVP did not exist until late in baseball history, it favors the modern players.
5. Has some sort of Yankee bias. It is fairly clear from putting the best three players of all time as Yankees and he also has Mickey Mantle in the Top 10. No one in their right mind thinks Joe Dimaggio was better than Ty Cobb. He lays out the case for the two side by side. For Cobb he mentions .366 lifetime batting average (highest ever). 892 stolen bases (2nd best ever), 4,189 (2nd ever), unanimous MVP in 1911 and triple crown winner in 1909 (no MVP award given in that season) and on retirement he held or shared more records than anyone. Dimaggio’s credentials? 10 Pennants and nine World Series. Is that a Dimaggio accomplishment or a Yankee accomplishment? Are we punishing Ty Cobb for playing for the Detroit Tigers? How many Hall of Fame players did Dimaggio play with? How many did Cobb? Would that not make a difference if the qualification for best centerfielder ever had to do with team victories? Dimaggio gets credit for missing seasons because of WWII, but Cobb does not get credit for missing a season for WWI, nor does he get credit for actually getting hit with mustard gas during the war that damaged his lungs and ended the career of Chris Matthewson, who was with Ty. Dimaggio played baseball at Pearl Harbor during WWII. Pretty dumb in my opinion.
6. Ignores advice of the ancients. This is what Messmer writes about Cobb, “The fact that [Cobb] received more Hall of Fame votes that Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson in 1936 says something to me that I can’t ignore” (pg. 242). Yet, he does ignore it and puts Babe Ruth as the best player ever leaving Cobb at 6 behind Ted Williams and a trio of undeserving Yankees including Babe Ruth. In other words, despite saying he cannot ignore that the sports writers of 1936 thought Cobb a better baseball player than Babe Ruth, he ignores it completely and puts Ruth as a better ballplayer.

There are a lot of those kind of example in this book. This guy is out of his mind. I still await a book that will not reward the Homerun, the modern player, and take a look at real stats to discuss who is the best of all time.