I’ve mentioned more than once on this blog that the two living men who have influenced my theology most are John Piper and John Frame. Frame’s writings, in my opinion, are always worth reading, even when I disagree with them.
His latest review is quite lengthy: 20,000+ words (!) on R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R, 2008). It’s worth the time to read for at least two reasons: First, as Frame mentions, “Clark presents here a view of what it is to be ‘Reformed’ that is very different from mine, and it may be good for the two of us, and other readers, to have the differences set forth and analyzed.” It’s an important discussion worth having. Secondly, it affords an author the opportunity to point out in some detail when his positions are being misunderstood and misrepresented, and therefore can be a service to all of us in a quest to become more careful readers. An excerpt:
Clark, as often in this book, is appalled by my conclusions, but he seems quite unable to describe them accurately, and he is completely unaware of my arguments for them, and of the problems that have led me to rethink these issues. In contrast, I have tried in this review to consider carefully, not only Clark’s conclusions, but his arguments. I will not let myself reject any of his conclusions without considering and evaluating his arguments. Criticizing an author’s conclusions without considering his arguments is a very common error in theology, and it is especially common among those who, like Clark, develop their theology out of history, rather than seeking to apply (!) biblical principles to our present questions and situations.
Again, the whole long thing is worth the read.
Update: I should add one qualifier as a general principle: when you read a negative book review, it’s good to treat the analysis as provisional subject to your own review of the book. After all, perhaps it is the reviewer who is misunderstanding things. (E.g., that’s what Walton claims in this recent response to Poythress.) Reviews can be helpful in guiding our reading and helping us to think through arguments, but they are no substitute for reading the book for ourselves.
Update2: Clark offers a very brief response.
