User talk:Rsclark

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Covenant theology
Hi! I made some attempted clarifications to Covenant theology, and I was hoping you could double check to make sure I didn't mash it up. IMHO, the whole section is written somewhat confusingly, bouncing back and forth between views such that it's not clear who is on which side. Guessing that you are R. Scott Clark named in the link that you added, I suspect you may have considerable insight into the subject and could correct/expand the text. BTW, if you are that Dr. Clark, you should be advised of the policy against adding external links to sites that you maintain. If you have something you want to add, however, just leave me a message on my talk page, and I'd be happy to look it over. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, I am R. Scott Clark. I teach historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California and the history of covenant theology is one of my areas of specialization. I did not know about the policy against adding links to sites that one maintains. There is some valuable material there including primary source material and Vos' history of covenant theology. I don't see why it matters how the link got there so long as readers have access to it. If someone else needs to put the link there or validate it, I don't care. Since I have no interest in violating Wikipedia policy, I'll ask one of my students to make the necessary changes to conform to policy.

Some of your revisions are incorrect. Meredith Kline does not and never has taught that sinners can be justified by obedience to the law. Your revisions do not seem to recognize that several distinctions which Kline employs.

1. Adam could have entered into consummate blessedness by obedience before the fall.

2. After the fall only Christ could and did obey the law thus earning righteousness that is imputed to sinners.

3. Sinners are are justified only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to them and they receive the benefit of Christ's obedience only by faith in him.

4. It is Norman Shepherd, not Meredith Kline who does not clearly distinguish between Adam and believers. Kline's system is organized by the federal headship of Adam and Christ. Shepherd's system blurs that federalism by making Jesus a faithful believer, and thus the pattern for the justification of sinners, rather than the object of faith and the justifier of sinners.

On these points Kline's scheme is identical to the mainstream of historic covenant theology as I have argued in a couple of places.

R. Scott Clark


 * Hi, Dr. Clark. Please consult the policy on why linking to pages you authored or maintain is forbidden -- it's a general policy to prevent problems with conflict of interest (you may remember the stories in the news about certain politicians' aides whitewashing their boss' articles). Having your student do it seems to violate the spirit of the law and, if discovered, would likely be deemed an act of meat-puppetry (albeit a minor incident since I suspect all your edits would be in good faith), but I also want quality resources to be available, which is why I volunteered to review and add them for you as a third party.


 * Regarding the content of that article, thanks for the clarifications. As I said, it was unclear to me what that section was getting at, so I took a stab at making it more clear at the risk of getting it backwards (which I did). Feel free to correct the article, or I will try to do so later tonight in accord with your comments. If you need any assistance with Wikipedia policies or usage, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Flex,

With all due respect, I do not have time to become a part-time WP editor. Nevertheless, WP is an important resource and I want to get things right.

You write as if you are more or less responsible for this entry. I thought WP was an open source document and that no one person was in charge of any particular entry.

As to "good faith," the revision I've made have been done in public view and under my own own name. I stand to profit nothing by the revisions or the link I posted. If I was revising or asking a student to revise an entry about me, in which I would clearly have a vested interest, then there would be a parallel with the politician who fiddled with his entry to his own benefit.

The link I posted mostly contains material written by other people. It's not as if I'm using WP to promote my own work. The link was offered to fill-out the picture presented in the entry.

As for further revisions, there is no section on Karl Barth. He was probably the most important influence on the renewal of covenant theology in 20th century. Though I do not agree with his revisions of the Reformed tradition (e.g., the abolition of the covenants of redemption and works and the creation of a universalist notion of the covenant of grace; nor do I agree with his rejection of paedobaptism) his influence has been massive and revitalized the nature of the discussion of covenant theology. Directly or indirectly he influenced much of the scholarship on British and American Puritanism and on European Reformed theology. Unfortunately, Barth and his followers perpetuated a number of misunderstandings, but his influence is undeniable.

A second revision that should be made is some acknowledgment that it was widely held among Reformed theologians in the 17th century that the Mosaic covenant was a legal covenant relative to Israel's status as a national people and relative to their tenure in the land. Thus the entry is not quite correct to say that Mosaic covenant is the sole basis for "all future covenants that God made with mankind." To be sure, insofar as the Reformed tradition is definitive on such questions, the the covenant of grace is the basis for salvation and that covenant was administered successively under Moses, David, and the prophets, but some recognition should be given to the fact that Reformed theologians have long recognized that Israel's national status was temporary and conditional and abrogated on the basis of her corporate disobedience. There were opposing views, but the number of theologians who understood Sinai to be a republication of the covenant of works relative to the land and national status is remarkable.

Further, again from the point of view of the history of Reformed theology, it is not entirely correct to suggest an exact 1:1 correspondence between the Lord's Supper and the passover. There is a relation certainly, if only because of the circumstances of the institution, but there are also discontinuities between the Supper and Passover and links between the Supper and the other feasts.

I'm not sure that "credobaptist" is widely accepted term in scholarly discussion. I understand that it is used in internet discussions, but does it appear in refereed publications? It does not occur in the Oxford English Dictionary for example and thus is probably slang and not appropriate for a reference work.

Reformed Paedobaptists also believe that baptism is to be administered to covenant children in recognition of their status as covenant children as part of the administration of the external aspect of the covenant of grace. They almost universally recognized, until the 20th century, that there are two aspects to the administration of the covenant of grace, the internal and external and that only the elect, i.e., those who believe or who shall believe, benefit salvically from the covenant of grace. This distinction has been rejected by the writers in the so-called Federal Vision (e.g., Norman Shepherd), some of whom you cite as authorities on covenant theology. The views of the Federal Vision are highly controversial and have been explicitly condemned by a number of ecclesiastical jurisdictions and are presently a matter of study by one general assembly.

(At the risk of breaking more WP rules) - on the history of "internal/external" distinction see: R. Scott Clark, "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace," The Confessional Presbyterian Journal 2 (2006): 3-19.

Regarding Norman Shepherd, whom the entry cites as an authority, see

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Current Justification Controversy. Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2003.

Godfrey, W. R. "Back to Basics: A Response to the Robertson-Fuller Dialogue." Presbyterion 9 (1983): 80-92.

Kline, Meredith G. "Of Works and Grace." Presbyterion 9 (1983): 85-92.

Godfrey, W. R. "Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum." Presbyterion 9 (1983): 80-84.

Venema, Cornelis P. "Review: The Call of Grace." Mid-America Journal of Theology (2002).

VanDrunen, David. "Justification by Faith in the Theology of Norman Shepherd." Katekomen 14 (2002).

Horton, Michael S. "Law, Gospel, and Covenant: Some Emerging Antitheses." Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 279-87.

Regarding the Federal Vision generally see:

Beisner, E. Calvin The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. Ft Lauderdale: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004.

Waters, Guy Prentiss. The Federal Visioon and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006.

R. Scott Clark, ed. Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007).

On Olevianus see: R. Scott Clark, Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ. Rutherford Studies in Historical Theology, ed. David F. Wright (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005).

See also Bierma, Lyle D. German Calvinism in the Confessional Age Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

On the history of covenant theology, mention should be made of Heinrich Bullinger's treatise, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God (1534) is the first treatise explicitly devoted to covenant theology.

One other suggestion. I'm not sure why the entry spends so much time on Ray Sutton and writers of the theonomic or reconstructionist school. Again, with all due respect, I doubt that Sutton's work has exercised the degree of influence that warrants such coverage. The section devoted to his views seems somewhat disproportionate. If there are further revisions, that section might be reconsidered.

Thanks for your revisions and attention.

R. Scott Clark


 * Dr. Clark, I haven't had time to get back to this yet due to the holidays, but I will try to do so at some point soon. As for the question about responsibility, you are right that no one has any ultimate authority over any article. That's the nature of the Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I do also feel some responsbility for trying to get some of things right, which is why I said I would try to incorporate your suggestions if you didn't do it first.


 * Clearly there are few--among whom I do not include myself--who have the specialized knowledge of this subject matter that you do, but given that you don't have time to invest to make this article of higher quality, which is understandable, that tasks falls to less skilled volunteers like myself. This is a blessing and curse (if you'll excuse the pun) since we have more hands and minds but less detailed knowledge, but perhaps I can suggest a helpful arrangement that would lead the improvement in accuracy and quality of the article: some of us will continue to maintain and expand the article and you can act as editor or advisor, e.g., by pointing us to material on Barth or things that are missing, incorrect, or over-emphasized. Of course such a scheme doesn't preclude you from making direct edits, but you've already said you don't have time to be involved much.


 * As for the policy on external links, it is really just a general policy put in place to avoid problems elsewhere but applied across the board to remove wiggle room and judgement calls for the cases where it does matter. They're trying to prevent the Wikipedia from becoming a venue for propaganda or advertising.


 * Regarding Ray Sutton, a couple anonymous/new contributors (perhaps the same person) added that section recently, and another anonymous contributor (perhaps you, not logged in?) has already redacted the text. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)