Taking a stick to it...

Over at the Poythress/Frame site my friend and coworker, Andrew Dionne, has added another essay by John Frame critical of the two-kingdom, all-clean-neat-unctuous-and-sanctious approach which increasingly dominates the theology of Westminster West. 

Frame's subject in this addition to his series is Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession (2008, P&R).

If you're tired of modern keepers of the Reformation flame attacking men such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Jonathan Edwards as clueless enthusiasts, if you've heard enough high-minded and surprisingly pious-sounding attacks on pietism by Reformed poobahs, do yourself the favor of reading this piece--and read the others in the series as well. So far Frame has dealt with Michael Horton's Christless Christianity and David Van Drunen's essay, A Biblical Case for Natural Law

Further installments are in store, so continue checking back.


Frame's review of Clark's work is well worth reading. In passing it is sad to see that neither man thinks the Bible presents a problem for women's participation in the operational military. I wouldn't agree with every detail of Frame's assertions but on balance he really delivers a body blow to Clark's ideas and one is left to conclude that in certain respects Clark is not as Reformed as might be desired.

Frame is weak on the doctrine of sexuality, but aside from that...

I can't find Andrew's essay. Or do you mean that Andrew added Frame's essay? Thanks for clarifying.

It's an essay by John Frame. Andrew manages the site. I clarified this in the post. Thanks, David

Frame is wrong about a lot.

But, I am glad he is right about this.

Ken Pierce, but Scott Clark agrees with you that Frame is wrong about a lot. So where does that leave you? You don't agree with Frame. You don't agree with a book that disagrees with Frame. So you don't agree with anyone?

David, if you think that Clark and other Reformed confessionalists mischaracterize Lloyd-Jones and Edwards, maybe you could clean up their characterization of Lloyd-Jones and Edwards. Clueless enthusiasts? Has anyone said that? I thought pietists and revivalists believed in the terrors of the law, including the one about truth telling. Come on, how about a real challenge rather than hiding behind Frame?

David Gray- Clark is not Reformed? Say,aren't you the guy who plays Jack in the Jack in the Box commercials?

>David Gray- Clark is not Reformed?

Didn't say that buddy, just said he isn't as Reformed as might be desired.

Also I am blessed to see very few commercials and live in a part of the country utterly devoid of Jack in the Box.

My dear honorable and very wise Dr. Hart,

Speaking for Brother David: He accepts your challenge and respectfully proposes pea-shooters this Friday, 6 AM, in Northampton, MA--at Childs Park. I will serve as David's second and wonder if Bob Patterson might not be suitable and willing as yours. Change of weapon or venue is your prerogative.

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Your servant,

Tim, I see you prefer the methods of that great Edwardsean, Aaron Burr. I was hoping for something more like his grandfather. If not a treatise against Reformed confessionalism, why not a miscellany?

I grew tired of Westminster West long before I became one of those often scorned...what do they call them? Oh yeah: moralistic, enthusiastic, theocratic types...true confessionalism is where God is only "out there", but not "here".

I've found Frame to be tops in some areas (I like his conception of God as Author), and really Orlando, RTS in others.

What is sad is how Dr. Clark and those of his views react against the critiques. Invariably they respond with ad hominem and charges of either "well if you would just read everything we write you would have to agree with us" or "well if have read what we write you obviously misunderstand us".

It is very sophomoric and tiresome.

The best critique in my mind from Frame is the points made about the revision of the Belgic and Westminster Confessions on the points of theocracy. If we are to return to the Reformed Confessions then why not return to the original 16th and 17th century confessions on all their points not just where they agree with our current formulations?

That should say ""well if you have read..."

Well Ben,

How many folks here have read the book? It's a fair question when we're talking about what the book did or didn't say, isn't it?

Your response isn't ad hom?

>Your response isn't ad hom?

Given your juvenile treatment of people with whom you disagree (comparing them to the Brady Bunch, etc.) you are not in a strong position to raise concerns about tone.

>Well Ben,

>How many folks here have read the book? It's a >fair question when we're talking about what the >book did or didn't say, isn't it?

>Your response isn't ad hom?

Thank you Dr. Clark for proving my point.

GLW Johnson: "David Gray- Clark is not Reformed? Say,aren't you the guy who plays Jack in the Jack in the Box commercials?"

I saw a Jack in the Box commercial during the Super Bowl yesterday and Jack almost split his head wide open doing a bungee jump.

Benjamin Glaser, how did Clark's question prove your point? How did you answer the question?

Dr. Hart,
perhaps you didn't read Ben's original post.

I was watching these comments progress on my phone from my dentist's chair where I was undergoing a root canal. I think the root canal was less painful.

What troubles me across a broad front, ranging from the current two-kingdom, anti-pietist, anti-enthusiasm, anti-vernacular approach of Westminster West to the post-millennial, reconstructionist wing on the other side is a willingness to prefer speculative (not the schoolmen type) theology to the flesh-and-blood, judged-by-its-fruit life of the living church.

While I find myself in agreement with those on both sides in significant areas, the uniting principle behind such disparate views is, I believe, an unstated animus toward the real, living, tares-amidst-the-wheat Church of Jesus Christ.

Does it strike no one but me that those in these camps who speak slightingly of Edwards and Lloyd-Jones (and, frankly, Doug Wilson) tend to be professors rather than pastors? I'm convinced the constructs these men come up with can exist only in a world unencumbered by real world, flesh and blood exigencies. What unites such disparate camps as two-kingdomites and post-mil reconstructionists? Disregard for the heart. Contempt for "pietism" (or enthusiasm). Rejection of revival. Disdain for pastors who served the church faithfully and loyally such as those listed above. I wonder: is this the inevitable fruit of an academically-oriented rather than ecclesiastically-oriented life?

Sincerely in Christ,

David Bayly

Craig French, I did. Do you think "very sophomoric and tiresome" is a felicitous way of critiquing an imagined critique. Neither Ben nor David offer substance. They simply jump on Frame's bandwagon. Be careful. That carriage will take you to juggling in worship.

David Bayly, sorry to hear about your bad teeth, but some of us who are critical of Edwards and other evangelical Reformed are not merely academics. Clark is a pastor in the URC. I am an elder in the OPC. Spooky, I know, not the PCA.

What I don't get is that you cannot stomach any criticism of these "worthies." Simply to criticize them is to put yourself in the "well, you know about those people." Wouldn't it be possible that they made errors and mistook parts of the Reformed faith? I mean, does your having gone to Gordon-Conwell, a place that now pretty much backs womens' ordination, invalidate what you write or say?

So like I say, what do folks like Clark and me get wrong about pietism or Edwards or revivalism? And would you care to comment on how revivalism upholds Doug Wilson's Mother Kirk?

Here's hopiing the novocaine is still working.

Dr. Hart,

Let us not act like this thread exists in a bubble.

Whether it be when Dr. Frame or someone else critiques the thesis or particulars of Dr. Clark's articles, books, or other publications his responses on the public sphere (here public meaning the interwebs) very rarely deal in substance but in ad hominem and charges of ignorance, blind or otherwise. See forward the KERUX fiasco for a blatant example where neither side proved themselves with very much gentlemanly conduct. It is an act that is sophomoric and tiresome on all sides and something that is getting out of control on the internet where speed of transmission is trumping prudence daily.

Dr. Hart,

While I'm not a party to anyone in particular (I'm no Reconstructionist, per se), and am not really a fan of Frame, I can say I'm not on any particular bandwagon.

I asked you if you read Ben's comment because you wondered how Clark had proven Ben's point.

Ben stated:

"Invariably they (Clark, et al) respond with ad hominem and charges of either 'well if you would just read everything we write you would have to agree with us'...."

Dr. Clark followed up with this:

"How many folks here have read the book?"

Believing this to be humorous, I asked you if you had read Ben's comment.

You're asking David (and others) to provide something akin to a thesis...and I don't believe a passing recommendation to read an article requires much more than what David offered.

2 Kingdom theology produces bad fruit if applied consistently. I don't speak in theory, I speak from experience. Looking back, my lack of a Christian approach to everyday life was related to 2 Kingdom theology and the radical Law/Gospel divide promoted at Westminster West. I got heavy doses of it via the White Horse Inn and Modern Ref when I was a subscriber.

I don't need to say childish things about you or Dr. Clark, I present Exhibit A: me.

Dear Daryl,

I'll grant that you and Professor Clark are ecclesiastics if you'll grant that my brother and I are academics.

Meanwhile, I'm off to juggling practice. Read about it in "Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God" and learned new techniques from Douglas Wilson last year at a joint Pastor's College seminar.

David Bayly

Doesn't matter now if he grants it or not, the sentence itself disqualifies you.

David, I'll grant you make an effective criticism when you make one. I can understand your not liking something. But does your like or dislike of something prove its value or worthlessness? Remember, Tim Keller likes Edwards and Lloyd-Jones too.

Craig French, since I don't know you, how could I possible take you as exhibit A of 2k's defects? How about me as exhibit A of its superiority? How convincing is that?

As for a passing recommendation about a Frame article, fine, it's a free blogosphere. But what provoked comment was the line, "attacking men such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Jonathan Edwards as clueless enthusiasts." I have been critical of both men. I have not called either clueless, enthusiasts, nor would I. My reasons for disagreement are not personal even if David's original post was a tad personal along with his attempt to discredit Reformed confessionalists as lacking experience in the church.

I'm an economist, new to these theological debates, and I must say that I found this comment thread confusing.

I read the Frame essay, though, and found it very well written and argued, tho of course not having read the Clark book itself I don't know whether Frame is attacking straw men or not. It didn't seem like it. It used a lot of what is an important scholarly tool: showing that someone's Idea A is inconsistent with that person's Idea B or leads to absurd consequences, or that idea A confuses two distinct ideas. Even if one doesn't care about what Clark might say in his book--- which I don't, not knowing the personalities--- Frame's essay is a good one. He's clear enough that I can tell where I agree and where I disagree with him, too.

Dear Daryl,

We've been around this block before....

I was initially confused when you took umbrage at my post. I didn't think John Frame had you in mind in his review, nor did I in my recommendation. But we've debated these and similar issues in the past so I shouldn't have been surprised.

Let me assure you, since you're apparently unaware, that we've posted more than once on Edwards and Lloyd-Jones and the disdain in which they're held by modern Old School advocates: http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/02/was-the-preachi.html , http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/01/i-submit-myse-1.html.

We've expressed dismay at the pinched and grudging public moral vision of two-kingdom advocates: http://www.baylyblog.com/2010/02/tim-while-on-the-subject-of-our-spirituality-of-the-church-and-redemptive-historical-brothers-and-their-take-on-the-cultur.html.

We've written and featured writing on the elitist tendencies of two kingdom advocates in worship: http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/12/thoughts_on_mus.html, http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/12/thoughts_on_mus_1.html, http://www.baylyblog.com/2005/12/thoughts_on_mus_2.html.

It's really not the case as you suggest that we snipe from the sidelines here. I feel little obligation to take up your challenge to write further when: I wasn't posting about you in the first place, and; in the past Tim and I've engaged you and those you apparently consider your allies in precisely these areas.

Despite your unhappiness at my post, I hold you in higher regard than those you feel joined to in Westminster West's bold new two-kingdom endeavor. I've not read Clark and I probably won't. But I liked your biography of Machen and your history of the OPC. I didn't appreciate Mother Kirk and that's to be expected given our disagreement over worshipping in the vernacular.

Nevertheless, I'm awaiting your answer as to whether Tim and I are academics. I'll call you and Scott Clark credible churchmen if you'll grant that Tim and I are credible academics--after all, we do run a pastor's training college at which we both teach. Does that qualify us as academic insiders on the order of you and Scott Clark? If so, then I'll grant you and Scott Clark what you wish, the right to be considered churchmen.

In Christ,

David Bayly

Dear reader,

Please do not be taken in by my brother's request of Dr. Hart. I don't think David's serious. Or I should say I hope he's not.


David, I'm glad to see you don't consider your blog as being evidence of your academic bona fides. I tried to follow most of the links, and the most scholarly presentations there were from Andrew Dionne. Otherwise, you seem to dismiss as wrong thing with which you disagree. I wonder if you have ever learned something from someone on the other side.

I am truly curious what you find so objectionable about Clark's book or mine. It's fine if you disagree. But is someone actually wrong (or nuts) simply if they disagree with you? And if someone criticizes Edwards, well, that pretty much tells us all we need to know. Does it?

As far as running a pastor's college, I guess the academic committee is still out. Was Charles Fuller a scholar because he started a seminary?


Help me out here- you are tired of Reformational gatekeepers (like Scott Clark) who cast doubt on the likes of Lloyd-Jones for his revivlistic emphasis and you include Doug Wilson of Federal Vision fame as another poor soul who needs protection from the over zealous TRs-but the Federal Vision is the offspring of Norman Shepherd ,who LloydJones frankly accused of promoting "another gospel". Huh...

>I'm glad to see you don't consider your blog as being evidence of your academic bona fides. I tried to follow most of the links, and the most scholarly presentations there were from Andrew Dionne.

This just proves David's point, I think.

My problem was I found all but one of the links was dead.

An interview with Darryl Hart online:

David Strain: Darryl, would you comment on the distinction that is often made in conservative reformed circles between revival and revivalism? Is it a helpful distinction?

Darryl Hart: I am inclined to think it is a distinction without a difference...typically the assessment of Edwards and Whitefield does not go a lot farther than the 5 points of Calvinism. But what about preaching the “terrors of the law” to apparent believers? What kind of theology leads to that?

DS: Do Old Siders believe in evangelism?

DH: Now, because of the influence of revivalism – just as conversion has taken on a different meaning from the Reformation, so has evangelism. For many revival-friendly Protestants, evangelism is what every Christian does. My “witnessing” is apparently no different or worse than God’s appointed means (let’s not forget Romans 10) for drawing his people to himself. But if there is still room in the universe for churchly evangelism, then I believe in evangelism.

DS:Do individual believers have a responsibility to engage in evangelism?

DH: Not to be coy , but some do and some don’t. All believers should be able to give a defense of their faith , but I do not assume that this is the same as witnessing or giving one’s testimony...I also think that the way that evangelism is often advocated leads to Christians who are constantly on the make, looking for a way to close the deal. In other words, they don’t seem to take other people as people; non-believers are persons to be converted and then the evangelist moves on to the next non-Christian.

Compare to:
2 Cor 10:15 "Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand"

Wait a sec, Paul! Haven't you listened to WSC? Gospel expansion is accomplished through the means of the office of pastor only...you're going to confuse the people about their vocation. Before you know it, they're going to be sharing why they have hope with unbelievers on their way to hell.

Eph 6:15
..."with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace."

Hmmmm...this probably means "don't confuse vocation with sharing the gospel...since vocation is already spiritual, why make it more-so? That's what Paul is saying". All I know is this: Paul can be confusing, co-mingling kingdoms and all. Let's go to where we can see the weakness of this approach:

DH: You see this very well illustrated in the movie, The Big Kahuna...(which has lots of bad language so believers whose consciences cannot bear such words should beware). It is an amazingly sympathetic view of a born-again Christian who feels compelled to witness on the job. Not only does the movie show that sometimes this approach makes Christians look like one-dimensional people, but it also says important things about vocation. If we serve God in our work, then we don’t need to make it really religious by using it to evangelize.

**The solution is to not overly spiritualize vocation by adding the sharing of the gospel at work...the answer to not preaching the Law and conversion to those within the church is to: Preach the Law and Gospel as WSC explains it...there's no unity, only division...so each week will be a "gospel" sermon with the "Law" to all of the already assumed converted...just no silly altar calls...an altar call is just too spiritual...since the congregation knows their spiritual act of duty involves never co-mingling vocation with gospel sharing, they never bring unbelievers to hear those that are allowed to preach the gospel vocationally.

When the already converted apprehend the goodness of God in His Son, they shouldn't see that moment as particularly important...stop looking at what God is doing now, that's subjective...and besides, we live in an icky world that God has no part of. Be sure to hate dispensationalism, and be sure to keep looking heavenward, there's nothing here worth doing...so go do your work as if it's a spiritual exercise God has no part of...and those suffering in their sin don't need to have zealots sharing their subjective inward hope(remember, they're already suffering, you're just making it worse)...keep looking heavenward to those abstractions that have no bearing on the way you live now (except to tell you that you shouldn't live as if they do) for we know it is more caring to think of the unsaved as though they are people...people who don't need you and are worthless and going to hell.

Taken from here: http://davestrain.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/interview-with-darryl-hart-part-i/

**There was some artistic liberty taken, but not much.

I think the sniping about pastors or professors is really moot.

I have appreciated Darryl Hart ever since he most graciously sent me his original doctoral work on Machen when I was studying Machen in undergrad at HIllsdale.

But, I disagree sharply with him about the nature of the church, even though I think of myself as a pretty staunch confessionalist.

I think history is telling: where is the once mighty RCUS? I would argue that Dr. Hart's hero, Nevin, absolutely wrecked it and paved the way for nominalism, and then, with staggering speed, liberalism, irrelevance, and death (except, thank God, for the Eureka Classis folk!).

I am still trying to understand the Two Kingdom folk. They seem to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

To me, there is a danger in the extremes of both the two kingdoms and the Kuyperian enterprises. The danger on one side is absolute quietism about moral evil in the culture, and an exclusive obsession with justification and a Reformed re-hashing of the two-stage salvation doctrine. ON the other side, alas, is Moscow, and its red, red wine. ;-)

>I think history is telling: where is the once mighty RCUS? I would argue that Dr. Hart's hero, Nevin, absolutely wrecked it

Having read Hart's biography of Nevin, which was very good, I certainly didn't get the idea that Nevin was his hero. As to the RCUS do we attribute the PCUSA to Hodge and Dabney?


As a former RCUS minister I understand the temptation to blame the decline of the RCUS (i.e., the German Reformed Church in the US) on the Mercersburg Movement but the story is far more complicated than that. I'm a little more sympathetic to J I Good's account than perhaps Darryl is and I do see the parallels between the Oxford Movement and Mercersburg but Darryl makes a pretty good case that much of Nevin's argument was really just Old School Presbyterianism.

As to tone, yes, I've responded sharply in some cases in defense of the gospel. For that I don't apologize. The doctrine of justification sola fide is the article of the standing or falling of the church (so J H Alsted said). I took ministerial vows to defend the gospel. I understand that I have to give an account of my ministry to the chief Shepherd and I don't say that lightly.


I've been a pastor since 1987 and I've done plenty of hatching, matching, and dispatching. I've spent a lot of time in the counseling room and making hospital calls and doing door-to-door evangelism on the street. I must be out of my mind to talk like this, to borrow from someone, so I resist the move to make me just a "mere' academic. Indeed, I've spent more time doing the things John thinks we ought to do than John has -- by his own admission!

I wrote RRC out of concern for God's people. After having tried angry fundamentalism and church-growth progressivism, my studies and experience taught me that the best thing for God's people is the theology, piety, and practice that we confess in our standards.

I'm a little surprised that you've decided that you're not going to read the book. If John thinks the book is worth 20,000 words doesn't that suggest that you ought to give it a read?

>As to tone, yes, I've responded sharply in some cases in defense of the gospel.

Sharp and juvenile are hardly the same.

Dr. Clark,

I am all with you in defending justification. No question it is the article on which the church stands or falls.

In the PCA, however, I think we see the doctrine misused for anti-nomianism, and all calls to gospel holiness despised as legalism. Sad to say, I think WHI fuels this, at least how some people hear it.

And, thus faithful pastors are tarred as legalists by folk both on the left and the right.

Justification is a cardinal article of the faith. My sole point is that it is not the only article of the faith.

I despise the FV, as you do. I think they are hopelessly compromised on Sola Fide, and having given away the store on that point, everything else follows.

Craig French, if you think 2 Cor. 10 is about every member witnessing, then I'd hate to see how you handle other texts. But many thanks for calling the readers' attention to my interview with David Strain. You're a mensch.

Ken Pierce: hey. And talking out of both sides of your mouth is the point of 2k. The state talks justice, the church talks forgiveness. Mix the two and you get liberal churches that preach social justice, and liberal states that forgive wrong doing. What's so bad about me, as both a citizen and a Christian, talking out of both sides of my mouth. To speak with one mouth is the view of either Anabaptists (pacifism) or reconstructionists (restore Israel).


Can you point to a specific instance where the WHI guys have encouraged antinomianism? Can you define what you mean by it? For some, refusing to say that we're justified because we're sanctified is antinomian. I guess that's not what you mean. As far as I know all the WHI hosts, two of whom are ministerial colleagues (and faculty colleagues at WSC; Mike full-time and Kim as a visiting or adjunct prof) and thus the notion that these two confessional(ist) Reformed pastors have encouraged antinomianism is somewhat troubling. I listen weekly to the WHI and what I hear from them is the first and 3rd uses of the law and even discussion of the 2nd use. All the hosts are confessionally committed to the third use, i.e., the normative use for the Christian. I know that Mike has moved in his view of the Sabbath away from his earlier views (which may get re-broadcast in re-runs, I don't know) and he has embraced the confessional view of the Sabbath. I don't know what else you have in mind.

It would help me to understand how these things are being heard.

Have you heard these talks?


What exactly does one have to say in order not to be antinomian?



re: "two kingdoms"

I think the two kingdoms simply means, at bottom, that Jesus administer's his sovereignty providence in two distinct spheres. He's always sovereign but there is a distinction in the spheres in which he works out his providence.

Have you heard the audio or watched the video from the recent conference? There is a range of opinion on this in the faculty and that range was on display, good naturedly, at the conference.

The mp3s are here:


The video is free and online here:


Further, there's an interview with David VanDrunen on his new book on natural law and the two kingdoms here:


The book is here:


I would be interested to see if it's still confusing after reviewing some or all of these materials. We're certainly making a good faith effort to communicate what we're trying to say.

Dr. Clark, thanks for the references. I will listen as time allows. I would particularly be interested in any critiques of Kuyper, who is one of my personal heroes, and certainly the father of the Doleantie movement, whose spiritual children the URC is/are.

Re White Horse Inn. I gave up listening awhile ago, for this and other reasons. My concern is more with how Horton and co are being heard. You might counter that it is what they say that counts. But, you know well, as pastors, we need to labor to make careful distinctions, be heard properly, etc. Otherwise, we do damage. And, the larger the audience, the more harm we can do.

I thought Mike's recent interview in CT was an example of imbalance. He says even Reformed churches are guilty of proclaiming a Christ-less gospel. I think that is very much overkill, and i know faithful guys who have been beat up with Dr. Horton's own words.

Careful distinctions are called for. Who is failing to preach Christ? Is preaching the Law in its second and third uses legalism? Is making direct application from a text legalism? Is preaching OT saints as (in some sense) exemplary (or anti-exemplary) legalism? Is telling people "Stop sinning or something worse will happen to you" legalism?

Dr. Hart. That seems to me to be overly simplistic. The whole 2 kingdoms / sphere sovereignty discussion must admit of degrees. It is not just Jim Kennedy or complete quietism, right? Wasn't Kuyper himself a model of balance and careful distinction?

I would argue the most egregious example of imbalance on the two kingdoms side in recent memory was Misty Irons's ill-considered public defense of gay marriage in the body politic.

Dr. Clark: Thanks for the book recommend. I have ordered. I do want to understand, and I apologize if I, too, have been guilty of painting with too broad a brush.

Dr. Hart: One further question. Does the church talk only forgiveness? How does one square that with even the first use of the Law, or the denunciations of the evil from the lips of the prophets and JOhn the Baptist himself?

Dear Scott, OK, I'll read it. Given your history working as a shepherd I owe it to you.

Darryl, You're right, I'm not an academic. I make no pretensions to it. I wake up in the morning to my work and calling as a pastor, a preacher and shepherd of souls.

Kierkegaard once said that he realized he had changed from a theologian into a philosopher when he got up in the morning and opened the newspaper before the Bible.

When I wake up in the morning, I wake to a flock and a fold. My authority and calling are not academic. I don't know what you awaken to, but it's not the same calling and authority I awaken to. On this we agree.

Sincerely in Christ,

David Bayly

David, your church sleeps in your house? Wow, that's a big house.

Ken, don't let Kloosterman fool you. Misty was not advocating 2 kingdoms. She was actually making a case for evangelizing homosexuals. Since 2kers don't believe in evangelism (as many think), how could she be 2k?

Dr. Hart,

I read Misty's article. Was this not part of the reason that Lee was disciplined by the OPC, or am I mistaken about that?

I don't think I've ever written anything by Kloosterman.

And I would never say 2 kingdom folk don't believe in evangelism.


Since you only took issue with a biblical reference, I will assume you're in agreement with my running commentary. For whatever it's worth, here's what Calvin said with regard to 2 Cor 10:15

"For when he says that he hopes that, when their faith is increased the boundaries of his glowing will be enlarged, he intimates, that the weakness of faith under which they labored was the reason, why his career had been somewhat retarded. “I ought now to have been employed in gaining over new Churches, and that too with your assistance, if you had made as much proficiency as you ought to have done; but now you retard me by your infirmity. I hope, however, that the Lord will grant, that greater progress will be made by you in future, and that in this way the glory of my ministry will be increased according to the rule of the divine calling.”

Seems he expected something from the Corinthians that would expand Paul's ministry...something that flies in the face of WSC 2 Kingdom nonsense...and I would think it has at least a little to do with evangelism.


Add new comment