Clark is not teaching the Broad view of the Westminster Divines.

And He said something about my dog not barking.


Great expose’ from a comment Dr. R. Scott Clark made.  I feel vindicated.  He is not teaching according to the Westminster Standards.  He is more inline with the Theology of Meredith Kline or dare I say Lee Irons.

“That God might have arranged a temporary, national covenant with Israel such that she may be said to have “merited” temporal blessings in the land is a view that has been held in the history of Reformed theology. It is probably a minority view but it has been held.

I would not put it that way myself. As I’ve said many times, there’s too much evidence in the history of Israel for me to think that even the temporal blessings were merited. Nevertheless, it is also the case that Scripture does speak to Israel in legal terms and that, is, in my view, the material question in republication. I agree with the broad mainstream of classic Reformed writers in the 16th and 17th centuries and with the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that the old covenant (Moses-David-Prophets) was both an administration of the covenant of grace and an administration of the covenant of works.” R. Scott Clark

It is probably a minority view?  It definitely isn’t the Westminster Confessional view.   Broad Mainstream?  In my estimation Dr. Clark is teaching contrary to the Broad view of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  I am not so sure he is teaching according to the Marrow Men even.  Please just finally acknowledge it Dr. Clark.  Clark is Lutheran instead of Reformed.  Read Bavinck and the Divines of the Westminster Assembly.  Put Clark in the Holding Pen and read the Divines and Bavinck.  SMH.

Joel Beeke and Mark Jones acknowledged Owen to be in the Minority Position concerning the Mosaic Covenant. They still have great respect for Owen as I do.  Why can’t Dr. Clark acknowledge he holds to the Minority View also? (Chapter 18 of Puritan Theology) Just be honest and say what you are Dr. Clark, ‘A Minority Man’ which teaches contrary to the Westminster Assembly.

Maybe Dr. Clark isn’t skirting the issue any longer.  Maybe he just wants the minority view of yesteryear to be a Newly Revised Confessional MajorityView of today.

It seems Clark is all over the place on this topic.  He says one thing one day and another thing on a different day. Plus, the one thing he says about being inline with the Marrow Men I am not sure about.  They have risen up in my ear on the Puritanboard and in private correspondence to affirm that that isn’t true.

Follow him and his interactions here if you can.