Coming Soon from Dr. Scott Clark

Scott Clark's new book, Recovering the Reformed Confession (from P & R), will be released in November 2008.

Having read several draft chapters, all I can say is this volume will provoke much discussion about what it means to be Reformed in our doctrine, as well as in our practice (preaching, sacraments, catechism, worship, and piety).

Not everyone will agree with Dr. Clark about every point he raises.  But this book will certainly provoke a discussion Reformed Christians need to have.  The book will force us to deal with this basic question--"are we going to be Reformed in both our theology and practice, or are we going to be Reformed in our theology, but remain evangelicals in our practice?" 

Comments

[PB]

Before "evangelical" became all things to all people, there would be no problem being Reformed and evangelical, by definition! Interesting to see his take on this. A useful adjunct to David Wells' newest, "The Courage To Be Protestant"

[Charlie]

Agree with PB! One wonders when to be truly Reformed will again be : Creedal, Sacramental, Liturgical, under the category Biblical!

[Ivan]

"Reformed and Always Reforming According to the Word of God."

Perhaps both Evangelicals and we Reformed need to keep our labels of E / R secondary to Biblical, and that would do much to remedy our circumstances?.

[Arthur Sido]

Dr. Clark has already been pretty clear that only those who buy into infant baptism get to wear the label of "Reformed". The basic premise is that one is Reformed because one holds to the proper Reformed Confessions (i.e. the LBCF 1689 doesn't count). That strikes me as putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

[David C]

Too bad the NT doesn't give us a clear example of infant baptism. huh?

And also, if people are going to say you can only be "reformed" if you baptize infants, then how can you have "reformed theology but hold to evangelical practice" if your theology doen't inlcude IB? With Dr. Clark's understanding, no IB means no Reformed Theology at all. Labels are great and useful, but them can become a little prideful after a while. If you don't want to call me "reformed" because I didn't baptize my son, so be it.

BTW, your blog is one of my faves. Even if I'm not totally reformed. ;-)

[charlie]

Historically and Biblically, the Protestant Reformers (Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed) held to the two Dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion. Proper administration of the former demands infant baptism. Anabaptist practice is rejected. Calvinistic Baptist? Yes! Reformed Baptist? No! I agree with Dr. Clark.

[Rana]

what is the RB view on covenant theology?

we are moving to an area (Southern California just E of 91/15 intersection- right now we are out of state) where the closest URC is 25-30 minutes but I think there are some RBs closer to where we want to live. we really want something confessionally reformed and practices love of neighbor.

thanks.

[Chris Rehers]

I am looking forward to this book. I really believe it’s just not semantics to say that being just a Calvinist in your Soteriology doesn't make you reformed...i.e. a “reformed Baptist” is an oxymoron if there ever was one. If you’re not “reformed” so be it…don’t be hurt…just admit what you are and are not…no biggie and no hard feelings…but if it does bother you perhaps some much needed research is needed…hence this book will be good to have. Thanks Dr. Clark for taking the time to publish this work.

Cheers,
Chris Van Rehersma