Even republication deniers wind up affirming republication. For them the Covenant of Works is gracious, and so is the Mosaic covenant. So at Sinai there was a republication of grace. (In fact, the way some Federal Visionaries can’t distinguish grace from works, I wonder if they actually think the Covenant of Grace was a republication of the Covenant of Works.)
My, how the three-point shot is ruining basketball (thanks to our mid-West correspondent). Or it could be that those folks in Kansas, going back to the good Presbyterian Dr. Naismith, really do know how to play the game?
Rants like this one make plausible why John Frame can entitle his own festschrift, which he edited and for which he wrote three chapters, Speaking the Truth in Love.
R. Scott Clark is stupid. By that I mean that Dr. S (is for stupid)R. Scott Clark is dazed and unable to think clearly and he lacks intelligence and common sense. He is stupid, first of all because he, in embracing R2K, is embracing a theory that is incoherent. He is stupid, second of all, because even though the Escondido Hermeneutic has been disemboweled by Kerux he continues to champion that very theory. He is stupid, third of all, because he seems to lack the intelligence to understand that with the advent of Wittgenstein’s work on the philosophy of language Natural law theory is a Humpty Dumpty that can not be put together again. He is stupid, fourthly, because he refuses to bow to the clear teaching of Scripture touching total depravity. He continues to insist that fallen man can interpret natural law aright even though fallen men suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. He is stupid, sixthly, because he continues to trump a theory where presuppositionalism is the epistemology that reigns in the spiritual realm while at the same time, in a WSC dualistic fashion, he advocates some form of common sense realism for the common realm. He is stupid, seventhly, because he seems to think that one weekend conference at WSC automatically slams shut the discussion on this very issue. As seven is the number of perfection, I have thus shown that R. Scott Clark is perfectly stupid.
Scott Clark may be stupid, but he also edits the Classics in Reformed Theology series for the Reformation Heritage Books. The latest in the series is out – Caspar Olevianus’ An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, translated by Lyle Bierma
Old Life 
Who knew that Wittgenstein ran the world? “In principio creavit Wittgenstein caelum et terram?” That’s good to know. I’ll try to adjust my theology accordingly. It will be interesting to see how this cat works out this approach to the incarnation.
LikeLike
Speaking of stupid, he forgot “fifth of all.” I’ll bet Dr. Clark can count to seven. 😉
LikeLike
What a lout! While denying that our unregenerate neighbors have access to even a glint of the light from Natural Law, old ironhead shows forth almost every trait that Paul associates with the pagans’ rejection of the knowledge of God in Romans 1:28-32:
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
LikeLike
Inronhead Bret has condemned himself as a Pelagian by virtue of his own ironclad logic! Check this out:
In a post just a couple of weeks ago, Bret responded to emails sent to him about the Kerux review of the TLNF. One reader challenged the review’s claim that TLNF necessarily taught Pelgainism: “[The reviewers’] accusation that a typological works situation for national Israel is Pelagian doesn’t make logical sense and actually works against them [the reviewers]. I think they incorrectly assume that a republication view holds that man has the ability to merit righteousness before God….â€
This is how Bret responded on 1/22/10:
“As Kerux notes the word “typological†in the phrase “typological covenant of works†is adjectival. It’s presence doesn’t negate that God, in a regress of redemption, placed corporate National Israel back under a covenant of works – typological or otherwise. Keep in mind here that there is no way that corporate National Israel is under this Escondido typological covenant of works unless each individual in Israel was under this covenant of works. You can’t get to the corporate without going through the individuals. As such the accusation of Pelagian makes perfect sense since the Escondido Hermeneutic insists that National Israel, as every man, woman, and child, was under a covenant of works w/ the Mosaic covenant. After all, as long as Israel did stay in the land they could rightly believe that they had kept the republication of the covenant of works as seen by the reality that they were still in the land. Corporate Israel according to this paradigm could say, “As seen by the fact that we are now still in the land it is obviously the case that we have kept the typological covenant of works.†Ipso facto Pelagianism.†(Emphasis in orginial).
But Bret posted this on 1/31/10:
“Israel was to be the means by which the saving knowledge of God would be brought to the nations. Israel was to be the nation leaven that leavened the whole world. In order to fulfill that assignment Israel’s national life was to be Holy (separated) unto God, exemplified by their taking seriously God’s Law.â€
“And because of this reality the Deuteronomy text in [Ch. 4] vs. 39-40 can give us the moral necessity that is built upon the theological reality that God is God alone.â€
“So in this salvation history Israel’s one of a kind position was one that spoke of missionary duty as much as it spoke of privilege. If Israel failed in its missionary duty and moral high calling then it’s special status became festooned with heavier judgments then the other nations.â€
“Amos recounts the blessings and privileges of Israel as God’s salvation history people but this recounting of blessings and privileges is used by God through Amos to indict them for their societal injustice and cultural corruption.
“So God calls upon Amos to bring covenant lawsuit against Israel and the verdict is that Israel would be severely chastised and the land left deserted.†(Emphasis added).
I’m not endorsing Bret’s version of republication (it has some obvious flaws). All I’m saying is that the argument of his 1/22/10 entry indicts the theology of his 1/31/10 entry as Pelagian.
The 1/22/10 post is entitled “Kerux & Its Five Alarm Fire — Discussing The Escondido Republication Hermeneuticâ€
The 1/31/10 post is entitled “Israel, The Messiah, & The Progress Of Redemptionâ€
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but citing a random, anonymous blogger and linking him, however remotely, to John Frame, is as straw man as they come. It’s like citing a youtube comment on an Obama video to characterize current Conservative thought – it doesn’t deserve to be legitimized by a response.
From a church discipline angle, though, it does bring up an interesting facet of the blogosphere – foolish slander pours out from nameless nabobs without even the possibility of correction. Sad.
LikeLike
Regardless of who wrote the comment, Wittgenstein shouldn’t be used by anyone to set linguistic paradigms. While not completely devoid of valuable commentary, he hacked up language theory to the point that he actually had to retract fundamental elements of his own teaching.
If language is devoid of inherent meaning, then that must include the statement “Language is devoid of inherent meaning.” Da doo doo doo Da da da da…ad infinitum.
Hard (impossible?) to identify anyone as stupid while marking them against a measuring stick that doesn’t measure anything.
LikeLike
Maybe Mr. I (I is for Irenic) Iron Ink is so grumpy because he couldn’t make the blind half-court shot when apparently everyone else, from science teachers to journalists, could.
LikeLike
Darren, I think the grumpies might have more to do with being a rabbi in pastor’s clothing. That’s gotta hurt in a square-peg-round-hole sort of way. But if it does owe to equally blinded people outdoing him in a common task, well, that’s irony on top of pain. Ouch.
LikeLike
Andrew B. nailed it. I think the extended quote is over the top and certainly uncharitable. On the other hand, it does seem… odd… to edit and write for one’s own festschrift.
LikeLike
Tim, what did Andrew nail? I was actually paying Frame a compliment. Or is faint praise actually damning?
LikeLike
I read your post as a fairly snide comment linking the rant to Mr. Frame. If I misread that, then Andrew didn’t nail nuthin… and I apologize for misreading you. As to faint praise from you being damning, I’m not sure yet. 🙂
LikeLike
Zrim, I stand corrected. Mea Culpa. But then my middle initial is S. Maybe that’s an S (is for stupid).
I’m curious about how these types throw out that catchy phrase, “Radical 2K” (I like the thought of being radical, especially when I gave up any hope of being cool). It’s done without much reflection that can be qualified as intelligent. I wouldn’t call them stupid because apparently we have the monopoly on that and I’m not feeling generous enough to share that distinction with them. But aren’t they practicing some kind of Radical Nominalism, creating some kind of reality bubble to live in? It’s like asking Wittgenstein into their hearts. But judging from their blogs, I don’t think that reality bubble is making them very happy.
LikeLike
Darren, like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does, ma’am.”
Seriously, though, it’s a good thing truth has little to do with intelligence or other worldly ability. I actually find theonomists a pretty smart lot. And I’ve bumped into a handful who are also pretty civil. But truth has to do with belief and unbelief, and, like any error, theonomy is a rather sophisticated function of unbelief. I think you’re onto something about reality bubbles. It seems to me that any form of 1K is all about creating a one-world order. And when someone comes along and suggests that’s a form of fanatsy, well, I can see how that’s pretty upsetting. My kids get really wrankled when I introduce reality to their fanatsies. Heck, sometimes I think I hear them whispering something about my stupidity as I walk away.
LikeLike
Regardless of who wrote the quote, and the fact that its over the top, he’s right: modern 2K dualism is stupid.
LikeLike
Go ahead and try to transform society into your 1k fantasy Brandon. I am absolutely confident in your ability to usher in Christs reign with charity, liberty, and justice for all. Seriously, your lack of respect for anyone who has any disagreement with you is repulsive.
LikeLike
Brandon, your grandmother wears army boots.
LikeLike
Jed, opposition to modern 2K theory does not make one 1K. Your comment about Brandon’s lack of respect are right on.
DGH, how do you know?!
LikeLike
Tim, My reduction was unfair, and you’re right there is a whole spectrum between 2k and theonomy. Where Brandon lands is up for him to explain.
LikeLike
The best part of this “Stupid” post was even missed. And I quote: “First, let us understand that mainline Protestants are Protestant the way that Metrosexual Males are Male.”
(x) saved to the “quotes” file on my harddisk.
LikeLike
Jed, I’ve already told you several times I’m not 1K. So its not up to me to explain, its up to you to stop your libel. The only response I have EVER received from 2K people is to lump me into 1K theonomy and then dismiss through mockery. I’d love it if someone actually stepped up and dealt with the issues. My critique of VanDrunen’s book awaits a response from anyone who finds a problem with it.
LikeLike
Brandon, as my prior comment said, I incorrectly reduced you into 1k. That does not constitute libel. However my statements regarding your inability to show a modicum of respect with anyone you disagree with stands.
LikeLike
Brandon, in all seriousness, you may wish to consider that the dismissive attitude you displayed is not inviting of serious discourse. With pronouncement of such final certainty, what argument will be fruitful? I’d rather laugh than become sinfully angry. And really, blogs are not really the best place for serious discourse to begin with. Taking ourselves less seriously is probably good for sanity (well, as far as sanity goes in the blogosphere).
But then, what do I know? I’m with stupid. A T-shirt with those words, which I have from my MIT days, proves it.
LikeLike