# Reformed Reaction to CT Cover Story (audio)



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Three URC pastors in LA have moved their radio show to the Web.

These are WSC grads. Adam is pastor of Ontario URC. Movses (pron. Moses) and John are church planters in Pasadena and Diamond Bar

They're a little hard on Mark Dever and they should give credit to John Piper for his recent work on justification (_Counted Righteous_ and his forthcoming critique of the NPP, but they make an important central point: These folk who are _becoming_ Calvinists in non-Reformed churches need to get out of such congregations and *into* confessionally Reformed congregations.

rsc

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 25, 2006)

I'm getting an error 404 from that first link Dr. Scott.

Is this it?

http://www.start.urclearning.org/audio/Reformed_Renaissance.mp3

Yes it is. Listening now. Reformed vs. reformed.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...
> they make an important central point: These folk who are _becoming_ Calvinists in non-Reformed churches need to get out of such congregations and *into* confessionally Reformed congregations.
> ...





Next to being converted, best thing that ever happened to me.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 25, 2006)

> but they make an important central point: These folk who are becoming Calvinists in non-Reformed churches need to get out of such congregations and into confessionally Reformed congregations.



So Scott are you saying that a Reformed Baptist church is not a legitimate church because it only holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed faith but not all the ecclesiastical distinctives?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Hi Bob,

If the Reformed confessions (i.e., the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards) define what it is to be Reformed, then I must say that Reformed Baptists are not "true" churches. This is not a private opinion. The Belgic Confession Art 29 lists three marks of a true church. 



> The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.



Most RB congregations have two of these marks, by denying the sign of covenant initiation, they miss the second mark. I've discussed this at length in other threads. I admit it's more difficult with confessional RB's than with the SBC or with genuine Anabaptists, but they do have one thing in common and that's a big problem for confessional Reformed folk, or it should be. It's for this reason, I think, that the Synod of Dort was careful to say in their church order that we ought not commune anyone except those who profess the "Reformed religion." 

I get along well with my ARBCA brothers. I regard them as rebels. They ought to unite with a true church. They are Reformed in every other regard, so far as I know them, but they have an over-realized eschatology that requires them to insist of a kind of purity in the institutional church that causes them to exclude (in their case) children whom they acknowledge to be "covenant children," from the sign/seal of covenant initiation.

As I say, there are long threads on this somewhere here.

Best,

rsc



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> 
> > but they make an important central point: These folk who are becoming Calvinists in non-Reformed churches need to get out of such congregations and into confessionally Reformed congregations.
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 25, 2006)

> The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.



So where they miss out on legitimacy is not that they don't administer the sacrament but that they interpret the word 'pure' differently than the big 'R' Reformed.

You're still my hero Scott but that surprised me.


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Three URC pastors in LA have moved their radio show to the Web.
> 
> These are WSC grads. Adam is pastor of Ontario URC. Movses (pron. Moses) and John are church planters in Pasadena and Diamond Bar



Be careful! These guys are radicals! I know.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 25, 2006)

This reminds me of friends in SBC churches that do their best to "buck the trends" (i.e., rock music 'worship,' women praying and reading Scripture during a consecrated worship time, etc ...), and get branded as divisive and troublesome. The problem is, though, they themselves aren't even "Reformed," because they are denying Reformed theology by even BEING in an SBC church, an autonomous, schismatic body that has separated itself from accountability to the visible church through its independence (not to mention lack of confessionalism, etc.). I feel bad for all those that stick around because they think it is THEIR responsibility to "change" the church for the better... when these people are not even ordained ministers of the gospel. They need to follow God's revealed will and be part of the true Church and worship God according to Spirit and Truth ... NOT act as something they have no place imitating.

The best decision I ever made was leaving my "home" SBC church and joining with the Reformed Church, only to await several years of training and spiritual growth before I could, myself, "go and change the Church." But, I won't be trying to change any church that has rejected the Confessions and tenets of Reformed Theology, I will be doing my best, by God's grace, to continue to reform the Reformed Church, according to God's Truth and our Confessions and Tradition.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Hi Bob,

I'm a miserable hero! I don't just have clay feet, but clay legs etc.

They exclude their covenant children from the sacrament of initiation and conflate it with the sacrament of renewal. The Reformed regard(ed) that as a serious error. 

I'm pretty sure I hold a minority view, For what it's worth.

rsc



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> 
> > The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
> ...


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Sep 25, 2006)

Dr. Clark (or anyone else up to the task),
Could you expand your thoughts on the fact that you refer to them as brothers yet they are not part of a true church. What is living to Christ outside of the church? Help me if I have misunderstood.....
thx, 
Theologygeek


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 25, 2006)

This smacks of inverted Landmarkism, in my opinion. Whatever side of the baptism question I find to be wrong, I believe I shall confess it to be mistaken, but not try to push them into becoming really reformed or really Reformed( either side might consider themselves to be "really" reformed, either in the historical sense or in the bare sense of what you hold to be more "reformed" ).

It's probably just about as appealing to most credos as it would be to you if we were to tell you you needed to join the radical reformers( anabaptist ) cuz' everybody knew they had less in common with the Roman church than *anybody else* and that's what _really_ matters. Ultimately, historically true statements about theological trends must give way to what we each find to be in the Bible. As I believe the point of most Baptist confessions has been, we're not that different than you and usually acknowledge your contributions to Christian theology. Just a modified view of ecclesiology and the ordinances. No doubt it's a very good thing we're able to hold our own services in our own chapels, seeing as we disagree over how the church should be run, but I'm hesitant to appreciate statements which separate Christians to such a degree over temporary ordinances. :twocents:


----------



## turmeric (Sep 25, 2006)

Who turned this into another _*baptism thread?!*_ Good grief, y'all!


----------



## Ivan (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Who turned this into another _*baptism thread?!*_ Good grief, y'all!



Oy vey!


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 25, 2006)

Maybe I've mistaken the general drift of this thread with those you'd find in the ecclesiology forum where you're expected to disagree. However, when someone uses the phrase "true church" and contrasts it with someone who at least looks like they're going in the right direction and sneers at their attempts to fix the church they attend rather than start off from scratch at another church with another paradigm, it has a tendency to irritate. 

Some have a harder time with this than others, I reckon. I believe I've already reacted enough against Landmarkist sentiments from the baptist side to be disgusted when I see what appears to be the same smug attitude on the side I tried to incorporate into my Christian walk even if I never end up agreeing totally. Can you sympathize with what I'm getting at?

Now, I can smile with those that smile or groan with those who groan when Brother Piper is taken to be a Puritan born after his time or something like that. He's a leader in his own sense amongst his own people, but I don't really get the same things from him that I get from the good oldies. But, I can also feel a little perplexed when the word "narrow" is used to describe the scope of what is considered to make one "reformed" today, when what they include in their definition to make it truly "broad" is basically that what each counts as Christian baptism occurs at differing points of life. It happens once, usually, and once done, we walk through life with the same Christ, spending the majority of our Christian lives doing exactly the same things. 

I hope it's not actually so big a deal that I can't walk in Christian fellowship with brothers of a different persuasion without being accused of only going "half-way" if I'm persuaded from the Bible that you've gone too far. I'm sort of biased against such arguments which are based upon historical theology rather than actual exegesis because it seems to put undue emphasis upon tradition. 

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by polemic_turtle]


----------



## Ivan (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> Can you sympathize with what I'm getting at?



I agree with you 100%, but this is . They ain't gonna change...we ain't gonna change. Don't worry about it.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 25, 2006)

yea, I know that's why we have the horse around. He sure takes a beating sometimes. :-\


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Tyler,

In my view my ARBCA brothers (and they are that - this is the MOST difficult case for my pov) are rebellious Christians. 

They worship in defective congregations. They hold a serious error and they are defective in practice. In the Belgic "sect" refers to the Anabaptists. The ARBCA folk are not that, but they do agree with the AB's on baptism. 

Read Belgic Confession Articles 28-29 closely, carefully, phrase by phrase and tell me what I should conclude in the light of what we confess?

Is "predestination" a sufficient condition to be Reformed. No. If "Reformed" doesn't include church and sacraments, then the word has little use. Of course it includes those things. It always has. The rather loose way we use it today was unknown when we coined the phrase. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Formerly At Enmity_
> Dr. Clark (or anyone else up to the task),
> Could you expand your thoughts on the fact that you refer to them as brothers yet they are not part of a true church. What is living to Christ outside of the church? Help me if I have misunderstood.....
> thx,
> Theologygeek


----------



## Ivan (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> If "Reformed" doesn't include church and sacraments, then the word has little use. Of course it includes those things. It always has. The rather loose way we use it today was unknown when we coined the phrase.
> 
> rsc



I remember talking about this before. Okay, I'm not reformed or Reformed. As I recall, you said that confessional was a better term. 

Therefore, I am a confessional Baptist (LBCF, 1689).


----------



## Archlute (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> If the Reformed confessions (i.e., the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards) define what it is to be Reformed, then I must say that Reformed Baptists are not "true" churches. This is not a private opinion. The Belgic Confession Art 29 lists three marks of a true church.



Just to clarify, WCF chapter 25 does not define "true and false churches" in the same way as the BC. I only bring this up because this debate is beginning to make itself more vocal in Reformed circles around here, and I think that it has the potential to bring about some unhealthy acrimony and unnecessary division.

WCF 25.4 & 25.5 allow for there to be a range of purity regarding the vital elements of a church, including the administration of baptism, which would then place those congregations under the lable of "less pure" regarding that function of the church.

I do not believe that many WCF churches would be willing to call our baptist brothers a "synagogue of Satan" due to a flawed administration of one sacrament. 

Sorry, Dr. Clark, but on this one point I will have to voice my humble objection!


----------



## Ivan (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> I only bring this up because this debate is beginning to make itself more vocal in Reformed circles around here, and I think that it has the potential to bring about some unhealthy acrimony and unnecessary division.





[Edited on 9-26-2006 by Ivan]


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 25, 2006)

"As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God"
( The priority of the mass over the preaching of the Word )

"it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;"
( But rather to the Pope or a magistrate. )

"it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word;"
( Though there is difference of opinion on how the ordinance of baptism is applied, to whom, and when, I don't believe we're dealing with an error on the level of the Mass, which is an ordinance bloated into the worship of physical elements. There is no false worship taking place, merely a difference of when the elect of God should follow the Lord in baptism and with how much water. Barely the doctrine of a church standing or falling, in my opinion. )

"it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;"
( Like the seven sacraments of the Roman church, which we're united in repudiating. )

"it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;"
( The alleged apostolic succession of the Roman church from which they derive what they think to be authority to speak ex cathedra. )

"it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God"
( This is a charge which some of the earliest reformers who persecuted the Anabaptist folk could better be charged with than any Baptist than I know of. Some 3000 were executed, right? I know there were Libertines, but I don't think all 3000 that faced martyrdom were of that bent. The Baptist ecclesiology doesn't lend itself to union with the other kingdom, so I can't imagine a case where the Baptists would be guilty of this in a lethal sense. Let's not talk about Mister Munster, alright? What a nut.  )

"and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry."
( We're on the same page as far as I know. )

Well, that's what I think, anyway. I appreciate your sensitivity in responding as you did. I'll continue to think about it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Adam,

I understand that American Presbyterianism has taken a broader view of this question, but I would be cautious about imputing our modern tolerant view to the divines. 

As I've been reading the history of American Presbyterianism on worship, the American Presbyterians defaulted on the Directory for Public Worship by the middle of the 18th century. There is even ambiguity as to the status of the DPW in the adopting act of 1729. 

I doubt that there was as much distance between the divines and the Belgic as you imply. 

Why were there no baptists at the Westminster Assembly? Because they weren't invited. Why? Because they weren't regarded as Reformed? Anglicans were there, Independents were there, Presbyterians were there. but no Baptists.

Consider WCF 25.2:



> The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; *and of their children:* and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.



This is substantially identical to BC 28-9. The verbiage is different, but the spirit is the same. Hence I give emphasis to the line concerning covenant children. This isn't Baptist language is it?

When the divines spoke in 25.4 of churches being 



> more or less pure


 they were speaking first


> according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced


 and also of


> ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.



If baptism is denied to covenant children is that "less pure" or less than less pure or are they even churches? Isn't this language retrospective, i.e., isn't it answering the Roman question: where was your church? Is it really answering the question we're asking? I don't think so.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 25, 2006)

I can't help but notice that after while, not only do these baptism arguments go in circles but they sound a lot like Abbot and Costello doing "Who's On First?"


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 25, 2006)

Dr. Clark, would you say the following are required to be truly Reformed:

What we have come to recognize as Calvinism, A Reformed view of the sacraments, and a Reformed view of Church polity (whether Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregational), and a Reformed eschatology (wheter historic pre, post, or amil)?

Would this be an accurate representation of the classical definition? Or is the definition more specific or broad?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 25, 2006)

Brandon,

The definition of "Reformed" is the Reformed confessions. That's it. The problem with the CT piece is that it uses a typically evangelical, minimalist approach to defining "us." CT doesn't get to define us, we do and we've defined ourselves as churches in our confession(s).

So, my answer to your question is to ask a question: What do we confess about each of those? If nothing, then it's not essential to being Reformed. 

Does that help?

rsc



> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> Dr. Clark, would you say the following are required to be truly Reformed:
> 
> What we have come to recognize as Calvinism, A Reformed view of the sacraments, and a Reformed view of Church polity (whether Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregational), and a Reformed eschatology (wheter historic pre, post, or amil)?
> ...


----------



## crhoades (Sep 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I can't help but notice that after while, not only do these baptism arguments go in circles but they sound a lot like Abbot and Costello doing "Who's On First?"



I don't know! 

Third base!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Who turned this into another _*baptism thread?!*_ Good grief, y'all!



The audio clip in question is dedicated to this topic. The show is clarifying how the Christianity Today article lumps anyone who is agrees with Dort as Reformed when the reformation involved much more than soteriology.

Christianity today's "poster boys" for Calvinism are John Piper, Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan (I think that was all of them). Except for Duncan, all these guys are Baptists who, as Dr. Clark pointed out, would not even be invited to the Westminster Assembly.

They agree with TULIP, but not with Reformed theology.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 26, 2006)

To follow up the post above, The LBC does not use the same language in ch. 26, which is parallel in some respects to WCF 25. There is no line concerning children. 

It's also interesting that the LBC uses Belgic-esque language re membership in "particular" congregations:



> As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.



It would seem fair to substitute "true" for "particular" since it seems hard to imagine that the LBC had paedobaptist congregations in mind. At any rate, this language is quite close to BC 28. So, confessional Baptists should have sympathy with at least _some_ of my argument.

rsc


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Sep 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Brandon,
> 
> The definition of "Reformed" is the Reformed confessions. That's it. The problem with the CT piece is that it uses a typically evangelical, minimalist approach to defining "us." CT doesn't get to define us, we do and we've defined ourselves as churches in our confession(s).
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> but they make an important central point: These folk who are _becoming_ Calvinists in non-Reformed churches need to get out of such congregations and *into* confessionally Reformed congregations.
> 
> rsc



I just read this article today, and before I even listen to this discussion I already agree with them. The article mentions unity between the reformed and the non. I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.

From his Introduction to "A Display of Arminianism":



> Neither let any deceive your wisdoms, by affirming that they are differences of an inferior nature that are at this day agitated between the Arminians and the orthodox divines of the reformed church. Be pleased but to cast an eye on the following instances, and you will find them hewing at the very root of Christianity. Consider seriously their denying of that fundamental article of original sin. Is this but a small escape in theology?—why, what need of the gospel, what need of Christ himself, if our nature be not guilty, depraved, corrupted? Neither are many of the rest of less importance. Surely these are not things “in quibus possimus dissentire salvâ pace ac charitate,” as Austin speaks,—“about which we may differ without loss of peace or charity.” One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,—“mors in olla, mors in olla;” their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJero<n po>lemon,[4] “a holy war,” to such enemies of God’s providence, Christ’s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters.[5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,—“the depths and crafts of Satan;” we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men.



:Owen:


----------



## Ivan (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.



Really? A Jihad? Really?! Wow!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Don't Mind Mr. Bartel, He is a Clarkian and is prone to the mistake of making every theological error equal and akin to denying the gospel.

We must remember that John Owens was good friends with John Bunyan (yes the baptist John Bunyan) and did not go Jihad against him.

CT


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2006)

We should also remember that Owen directed his comments against consistent Arminianism, which was essentially Pelagian so far as soteriology was concerned; and some of them bordered on Socinianism (open theism) in denying the foreknowledge of God. Inconsistent or evangelical Arminianism was not a force to be reckoned with at that time.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ivan_
> ...



Well that's just plain not nice! Not to mention a genetic fallacy.

BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> We should also remember that Owen directed his comments against consistent Arminianism, which was essentially Pelagian so far as soteriology was concerned; and some of them bordered on Socinianism (open theism) in denying the foreknowledge of God. Inconsistent or evangelical Arminianism was not a force to be reckoned with at that time.



I understand that he deals with some of the doctrines in this book that were of the "consistent" type as you have labeled them, but I would be curious to get your thoughts on Owen's sentences that immediately follow the quote I posted.



> Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters.[v][5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,—“the depths and crafts of Satan;” we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,—like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,—give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2006)

Insofar as an Arminian denies "Christ’s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit," then there is no doubt that it is heresy, because this is Pelagianism. However, inconsistent or evangelical Arminianism acknowledges both a substitutionary atonement and regenerating grace. Who does not marvel at the inconsistency of many of Charles Wesley's hymns, or even of John Wesley's "heart strangely warmed?"

I think the words of William Ames deserve consideration (Conscience, book 4, chapter 4):



> Question 4: Whether be the Arminians heretics?
> 10. Answer: The opinion of the Arminians, as it is received of the most that do favour them, is not properly an heresy, but a dangerous error in the faith, and tending to heresy: but as it is defended by some of them, it is a Pelagian heresy, because they deny the effectual operation of internal grace to be necessary for the working of conversion and faith.



The reflections of William Cunningham on the Arminian controversy are also worthy of notice (Historical Theology, 2:502-504):



> In the scheme of Christian theology, there is a class of doctrines which may be said to occupy a higher platform than what are commonly called the peculiarities of Calvinism. The doctrines here referred to are, of course, those taught by orthodox Lutherans and by evangelical Arminians, as well as by Calvinists, concerning the depravity of man by nature – the person and work of Christ – and the agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration and sanctification. The Bible was given us mainly to unfold to us the lost and ruined state of man by nature, and the existence, character, and operation of that provision which God has made for saving sinners. Everything which is taught in Scripture it is equally incumbent upon us, as a matter of duty or obligation, to believe, as every statement rests equally upon the authority of God. But there is a great difference, in point of intrinsic importance, among the many truths of different kinds and classes taught us in Scripture; and the general measure of their relative importance – though we are very incompetent to apply it, and should be very careful lest we misapply it – is just the directness and immediateness of the relation in which they stand towards that which we have described as the great leading object of revelation – namely, making known the ruin and the recovery of mankind. The doctrines which directly and immediately unfold these topics occupy a position, in point of intrinsic importance, which is not shared by any others; and these doctrines are just those which tell us of the universal guilt and entire depravity of man – of the sovereign mercy of God, in providing for men’s salvation – of the person and work of the Son, and the way in which His vicarious work bears upon the justification of sinners – and of the operation of the Holy Spirit, in applying to men individually the benefits which Christ purchased for them, and preparing them for heaven, by producing faith in them, and by regenerating and sanctifying their natures.
> Now, there can be no reasonable doubt that there have been, and that there are, men who have entertained views upon all these subjects, which we must admit to be scriptural and correct – because, in the main, the same as we ourselves believe – who yet have rejected the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism. The substance of what we assert is this – that men who agree with us in holding scriptural views upon these points, while they reject the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, do agree with us on subjects that are more important and fundamental, and that ought to occupy a more prominent place in the ordinary course of public instruction than those in which they differ from us. They hold the truth upon those points which it was the great leading object of revelation to teach us – which bear most directly and immediately upon the exposition of the way of a sinner’s salvation – which ought to occupy the most frequent and the most prominent place in the preaching of the gospel – and which God most commonly blesses for the conversion of sinners. Their consistency, in holding scriptural doctrines upon these points, while they reject the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, is not at present the question; that will be adverted to afterwards; the fact that they do hold them is undoubted, and it ought to be fully admitted and fairly estimated.
> It is not, indeed, strictly correct to say, that they hold purely scriptural views upon all these most important topics. We have had occasion, in regard to every one of them, to point out something erroneous, or at least defective, in their sentiments or impressions; and we have often asserted that everything, however apparently insignificant, which either transgresses or comes short of what Scripture teaches upon these points, is sinful and dangerous. Such, indeed, is the harmony subsisting among all the branches of scriptural doctrine, that truth or error in regard to any one of them almost unavoidably produces truth or error, in a greater or less degree, in regard to the rest – that, in short, none but Calvinists hold views which are, in all respects, scriptural, in regard to any of the leading doctrines of Christianity. Still, the views of the men to whom we refer are, in regard to these fundamental points, accordant, in their main substance, with the teaching of Scripture; and their defects and errors come out chiefly when we enter into some of the more minute and detailed explanations as to the bearings and consequences of the particular doctrine, and the more distant and less obvious conclusions that may be deduced from it – so that, in regard to almost any statement which we would make, in explaining our sentiments upon these points, for the purpose of practical instruction, they would fully agree with us.



[Edited on 9-30-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Ivan (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?



Apparently the Jihad has started.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Nope it is not nice, but I believe such actions are accurate descriptions of what the typical Clarkian does. (Yes people use induction in regular life)

Now concerning the baptists, I read too fast and came to the hasty conclusion that you were still addressing Dr. Clark's position at the beginning of the thread. For that I apologize.

CT


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 30, 2006)

Thank you for the quotes Rev. Winzer. My question was more directed to your opinion of my interpretation of Owen's position (i.e. would he agree with Ames and Cunningham?).

Thanks again!


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Ivan, I have no idea what you mean by this! My posts have been about Calvinist/Arminian distinction. If my posts were directed at Baptists or included them, it would be a tad inconsistent of me to use a congregationalist to rail against them.

If you have taken any offense to my words, please, by all means forgive me.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Nope it is not nice, but I believe such actions are accurate descriptions of what the typical Clarkian does. (Yes people use induction in regular life)



Well either way, it is still the genetic fallacy. I have read Clark, and agree with alot of what he has to say. I also appreciate Van Til (although on some points I can't say I do). Either way, to say that a particular pressupositional "forefather" has any bearing on my opinion in this thread is simply fallacious. Just as people do use induction in "regular life", not everything boils down to a Clark/Van Til debate.



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Now concerning the baptists, I read too fast and came to the hasty conclusion that you were still addressing Dr. Clark's position at the beginning of the thread. For that I apologize.
> 
> CT



Thanks


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 30, 2006)

*YES, THIS IS FUNNY*

JEFF,
THIS -- "J.H. Merle d´Aubigne (1794-1872)" --IS TOTALLY UNREADABLE IN YOUR SIG LINE. I HAVE FIREFOX AND I JUST BLEW UP MY SCREEN TO ABOUT 500% AND STILL I COULD BARELY READ IT.

NOTICE TO OTHERS: YOU MIGHT CHECK OUT YOUR SIG LINES. IF YOU HAD *INCREASED* YOUR FONT, NOW THOSE SAME NUMBERS ARE smaller THAN NORMAL. FOR BIGGER YOU NEED NUMBERS THAT CORRESPOND TO A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM, I.E. GREATER THAN 10 or 12.

[Edited on 9-30-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 30, 2006)

Thanks Bruce! The same happened to my name, but I missed the portion you quoted.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ivan_
> ...



And I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.......all is well...


----------



## Ivan (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> JEFF,
> THIS -- "J.H. Merle d´Aubigne (1794-1872)" --IS TOTALLY UNREADABLE IN YOUR SIG LINE. I HAVE FIREFOX AND I JUST BLEW UP MY SCREEN TO ABOUT 500% AND STILL I COULD BARELY READ IT.
> 
> ...



With all the problems with the board I have had none. In fact, it's better.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 30, 2006)

> Baptists do not deny the Covenant seal - we just delay it until we have some evidences that they are actually in Christ and in covenant rather than just growing up under its covental umbrella.



Here is the most fundamentally flawed assumption. I offer this thought to peel it apart:

It is not a difference between Baptist waiting to give the Covenant seal after evidence and the Reformed give it before said evidence. This misses everything. This is the most gross sad misunderstanding and why blinders remain on the eyes. 

Baptism is the visible Word or better visible Gospel. It’s not magical water or even that the voice of the pastor is itself power, but the Gospel annexed to the water by the Word, thus the visible Word. It is given as a means of Grace just as the spoken Word itself is BEFORE evidence exists that can be detected. To baptize our children is to give them the Gospel by visible sign and seal or means. It is a gift not a confirmation badge, the later is in reality biblically meaningless. We are not created as Gnostics would suppose as disembodied spirits but souls with real tangible bodies and sensory functions. 

Thus when a Baptist says, “we wait to give our children baptism until after evidence”, that is to say to the Reformed or whole of the Christian faith by physically doing it this way, “I give the Gospel to my child after evidence is manifested by them” or more crassly but accurately put, “…after some manifesting works, I give them the Gospel.” This over throws via the witness baptism, the Baptist understanding, the entire Gospel in that right or visible Word bearing witness. This type of baptism is really seen to deny the Gospel and not to witness to it.

Now we have to be careful here. It is not to say that the whole of the Baptistic doctrine denies the Gospel, but in its rights of Baptism it does, and in some versions of the Lord’s Supper (this varies even among Baptists). The Baptist is forced to agree or else he finds himself in direct contradiction with his own doctrine. It’s pretty much black and white here. Because when you say, “The only difference is that we wait for manifesting evidence before baptizing our children”, the Baptist, due to upholding the manmade paradigm in that idea of baptism, is blind and darkened to see it. It is a self imposed blindness to the cross on this one issue. However, if we rephrase it, “The only difference is that we wait for manifesting evidence before giving the Gospel to our children”, now it is brightly revealed. The Baptist would not in any way agree with the later for it is obviously works and denying Christ’s Cross. Yet, in the baptistic paradigm of baptism that is the exact thing being done, communicated and witnessed to – to every one, including themselves. This is fundamentally because the Baptist paradigm forces on to not see the Gospel in baptism or some really don’t understand the essential nature of the Good News and by extension faith itself.

Either baptism is a means of grace or it is a sign of confirmation. The two REALLY do not intersect and this IS the fundamental difference, not one side waiting while the other doesn’t. There is a reason one side waits and the other doesn’t but it has to do with one not having Gospel in the water and the other having Gospel in the water. If baptism is a sign of confirmation, then by definition it is no Gospel at all which gives by definition. This is undeniable without denying the position in the first place. Likewise, if baptism is a means of grace, then by definition it MUST BE Gospel, if it is a real means of grace, which by definition both Gospel and means of grace unto the Gospel and by nature GIVE.

Herein lies the deference and the real reason a Baptist church cannot be a full witnessing church of the Gospel and Cross. A Baptist church may bear wonderful witness to the Gospel in naked Word, perhaps better than some Reformed, but it douses its witness, as it were, in its witness on Baptism and for some in the Lord’s Supper. This is a sad and tearful truth Satan has cast into the midst of believers broadly speaking.

Where some reformed WILL fail, is if they fail to show this. Because the Christian is drawn irresistibly to the Gospel where he may live and love. Thus, the sheep will ONLY hear the voice of the true Shepherd, Christ, via the voice of the truly obedient under-shepherd who is to give him pastor (and I don’t mean perfection here either). He will NOT listen or lend ear to the voice of another, no matter how nice a fellow he is, how learned, or how much christianese he uses.

So , yes as a Christian grows he should seek out the Sacraments as Gospel. This will, barring providence, lead him/her necessarily to leave a Baptist church where the water, bread and wine have become contaminated with the yeast of the Pharisees due to the doctrine inserted and spelled out above. BUT, the Christian WILL NOT go from the legal ordinance frying pan of a Baptist church into a legal sacramental fire at a “Reformed” church. More than likely since he only listens to Christ’s voice, in Word and Sacrament, he will continue to seek out that church which upholds the Gospel powerfully in Word and Sacrament, that is as means of grace truly.

Like it or not, that’s the way it is – because the sheep find life and pasture in Christ alone in Word and Sacrament and not the doctrines of men or the devil. This is not and should not be taken as against people but against poisonous doctrine – do we not all seek Christ alone!

Blessings always in Christ alone,

Larry


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Either baptism is a means of grace or it is a sign of confirmation. The two REALLY do not intersect and this IS the fundamental difference, not one side waiting while the other doesn’t. There is a reason one side waits and the other doesn’t but it has to do with one not having Gospel in the water and the other having Gospel in the water. If baptism is a sign of confirmation, then by definition it is no Gospel at all which gives by definition.



You make some good points about the vast importance of one's view of the means-of-grace aspect of baptism. But at the same time, it is incorrect to say that there is _no_ sign-of-confirmation aspect of it (i.e. "the two REALLY do not intersect"). In fact, with respect to the visible covenant, that is exactly what baptism is - a _recognition_ or _mark_ (sign and seal) of one's covenantal _status_, though they already possessed that covenant status before the sign was given. The sections on baptism in the Westminster Confession, the Larger Catechism and the Belgic Confession make that clear.

Furthermore, remember that "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." As such, it is only a means of grace to someone insofar as it physically signifies and seals to his mind and heart that which he will (or does) possess when (or since) he believes. Hence, I would say that while our view of baptism as a means of grace plays a very significant and determining role in how we instruct our children to view their baptism, that view is not in fact the primary reason we administer it when we do (since its nature and efficacy as a means of grace is not even tied to that time), but that our children's biblical status as members of the visible Church is at the heart of the timing.

So I would say that the Baptist's primary error is not with his belief that there is a definite and significant sign-of-status aspect to baptism, but rather that his error is with his view of just who has that status with respect to the visible Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 30, 2006)

> since its nature and efficacy as a means of grace is not even tied to that time



useless statement deleted.

[Edited on 9-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 30, 2006)

Some good clarifications Chris, but if I may clarify further:

It is a means of grace as to what it communicates. That’s the very essence of “means of grace”. They do not intersect at all given the two paradigms. A wedding ring is a sign of confirmation of marriage but IT IS NOT defined by that, that is secondary and an effect of its basic nature, a sign and seal of a promise (vows given). For you do realize that the ring my wife where’s is not hers, though in today’s language we would say, “her wedding ring”, rather it is really mine and my vows, promise, good news (little “g” if you will) to her. I see the ring on her finger and it is a reminder of my vows to her. She takes it upon her hand and it does confirm her marriage to me, but it is not rooted in the confirmation but the vows I promised to her. She could cast it off later but my promise and vow was real (on the human level). Even if my wife were unfaithful to me (which she has never been by the way, just need to clarify that in this hypothetical in public!!!), it does not disavow the promise I made to her whereby if she became faithful to me she should request “another ring” from me. Because the point is, I’m giving my promise to her in spite of her weakness. To ask for another ring would actually be offensive. Not in a legal way in that she’s “done it wrong”, law, but not really understanding the love I’m giving her. That’s why “re” doing it is wrong.

Therefore, the Baptist sees it purely and primarily as a sign of confirmation, hence rebaptism occurs. That is to say its not tied, that paradigm to God, Christ and the Gospel itself but disconnected from that. That’s why the Baptist doctrine can view a first baptism as no baptism, if it is affirmed that no faith was there the first time whereby a second baptism, or first in baptistic language, occurs. Infants become an easy target because baptism is tied to “confirmation” and not the Gospel itself. Faith then becomes at length in the Baptist witness tied to conscience effort and a thing “to be done” because an adult “can do”. This is what Luther correctly observed when he said that if we cease to baptize children it will at length loose its witness. Why? Because the infant child can DO NOTHING but receive, the ONLY way the Gospel can be had by anyone. The infant actually bears witness to the Gospel most purely, this is why Jesus could hold up infant and NOT adults as “owning the Kingdom of Heaven”. NO where in Scripture are adults held so highly as this. Why? Because the infant erases every vestibule of “DOING” in the ceremony and can ONLY receive and THIS is the ONLY way the Gospel can be HAD, thus its most pure Gospel witness is seen unto infants. The Baptist paradigm, like it or not, communicates it or makes the witness entirely a sign of confirmation that ends up rooted in the receiver rather than in God. This changes it altogether and the conscience and soliloquy of the believer is affected not just a little bit but profoundly under the system.

This also plays out in the difference in the way the Reformed, and Lutherans for that matter, see baptism as having continued effect in the life of the believer; whereas the Baptist much like the Roman Catholic sees it more in an isolated one time and done view. The Reformed and Lutheran seeing it as a means of grace can constantly be refreshed by their baptism in times of trouble and struggle, something neither a Baptist or Roman Catholic can do, because the efficacy is lost once it is disconnected from that which makes it efficacious, the Cross of Christ! When the Baptist or RC is in spiritual turmoil inwardly or outwardly they must look to “other things” that become to them, albeit falsely, quasi means of grace. This is why in wide extension such man made features arise as indulgences, aisle walking, rededications, rebaptisms, purgatory purchasing things, pilgrimages, Promise Keepers (one of a number of protest “recharge” indulgences), looking inward to self and so forth. Rome disconnected baptism by making it purely in and of itself “efficacious” but this was still manmade and never comforted the conscience of the poor Roman Catholic. Why? The same reason, its disconnected from the Cross and the Gospel and becomes a pure man made act by man. The Baptist is essentially no different although on the opposing side of the aisle. The Baptistic paradigm disconnects it too from the Cross and Gospel which make it truly efficacious - due to what IT COMMUNICATES and NOT as a work or magic or intrinsic power itself – by making it NOTHING but a badge of confirmation. Again, this without doubt because THAT IS WHY Baptist can and do rebaptize or in that paradigms language give the real baptism (2nd , 3rd, 4th, etc…water rite event in church).

Thus, even the way the Reformed view “sign of confirmation” is different than the Baptist. The Baptist BASES baptism in the idea of “sign of confirmation” and hence at the end of the day a sign unto works. This is how it plays out in the conscience of the one under that system. Not primarily upon the Cross, death and life of Christ, else one would NEVER repeat it. This is why if I set up the scenario of same church, same pastor, 30 year old, acceptable mode, the guy turns away from the faith and for all detectable purposes does not have faith and it is thus judged. Then he returns in 10 more years in true faith and repentance to the same place, pastor, etc…(all argument escape hatches are closed). We then ask of the same in both a reformed church and Baptist church, would you “re” baptize (or baptize what you call a first real time in baptistic language, same thing) one will answer “no” and the other will answer “yes”. This reveals point blank the REAL differences in the views and they do not intersect at all.



> Furthermore, remember that "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."



The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. Westminster Confession 28.6

Herein we see that we do in fact administer it primarily because what it confers, just like we give the Gospel. It’s not an empty sign. We simply set forth the means Word and Sacrament whereby God’s has given His name and said He would work. We do in fact administer it because it is a means of grace not because it is immediately linked as to timing but because it is nakedly a means of grace. In fact that’s why we do it independent of time. It’s not linked to time, its linked to the Gospel, thus means of grace, neither time or works of men.

And; The sacraments are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the signs are not empty or meaningless, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment. Bel. Conf. Article 33

Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life. BC Article 34

This goes back to the difference in seeing baptism as continuous through the believers life Reformed (and Lutheran) or single point in time hence staccato like, Rome and Credo.

“The truth and substance of baptism is comprised in Jesus Christ (the Gospel, Christ and Him crucified – ldh). For we have no other washing than in His blood, and we have no other renewal than in His death and resurrection. But as He communicates to us His riches and blessings by His word, so He DISTRIBUTES (emphasis added – ldh) them to us by His sacraments.” J. Calvin

This IS the tremendous difference in the two views. Each builds on the other and forms the larger tapestry of what is occurring here. It painfully obvious that when a reformed person finds comfort in his baptism as Gospel and promise that it is MUCH more than a sign or seal of confirmation. Sign of confirmation by itself gives NOTHING, means of grace by its essential definition gives SOMETHING as Calvin and the Confessions even state, they are not empty vain signs or deceptive tricks. The difference can be seen here: Which is more sure to the believer? God’s promise of Gospel in baptism to cleanse me and save me or some thing I do, even if it is great and much, that may or may not prove at length that I’m saved? What work or life of works can I do whereby I manifest such “evidence” that can be 100% given that I’m saved in order to receive the confirmation badge, even if I were to exceed mother Teresa her self. Or God’s promise in Word and Baptism whereby I rest in the Gospel of Christ FOR ME and then can live to serve?

The answer to any Christian is painfully obvious.

Blessings,

Ldh


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 30, 2006)

Perhaps we Reformed folk should consider it a necessary and stinging rebuke that when God in his good providence was pleased to send America a "reviving of the doctrines of grace," he chose to use....horror and gasp...._Baptists!_


----------



## py3ak (Sep 30, 2006)

Larry, on your view, I am not precisely clear as to why we would not baptise an adult without waiting for a profession of faith. Could you briefly clarify that?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 1, 2006)

Ruben,

I'll be brief as you ask and because my tasks for the month just increased, so it will force me to brevity, not my strong suite!

The Word of God actually relieves us quite plainly here. It is not for us to reason this out as often the debate between infant and non-infant baptism goes. It gets stuck in the mud there under rationalistic presuppositions of why infants and why not adults.

But a short answer to ration is this, unprofessing adults, manifestly reject it. That's pretty obvious.

But the better answer is from Scripture: Because God has said this is how you SHALL distribute My promise, My gifts, My Gospel, in Word and Sacarment: It is to you, your children and all who are far off to whom the Lord our God shall call - and by extension their children too.

That's short! Where's Meg!!

Blessings to you and yours in Christ our Lord,

Larry

[Edited on 10-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## non dignus (Oct 1, 2006)

Would you say that candidates for baptism show evidence of God's call? That is the assumption that they are elect?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 1, 2006)

I will give my Pastor's and Session's answer to which I agree fully: We ought not place more burden upon the baptismal candidate than we find in Scripture. They may be very babes in Christ and know nothing more but their simple need of Him (my very own experience). 

Yes, they go through an examination to affirm the believe, but they do not seek out works in their life as "proof of election", which can all be faked, Simon Magnus being an example.

The evidence of God's call comes in the need for Christ as Saviour. In my own life this is ALL I knew. All I knew was I was lost, a deep deep sinner in every fiber of my being and that Christ died for me. I was in my experience nothing more than the sinner who could not even raise his head to heaven saying, "God, have mercy on me a sinner." And that is NO fabrication.

Half an hour early I denied Christ rankly! What fruit could I have other than coming to Him. For that matter what "fruit" did the 5000 have to prove their election!

ldh

[Edited on 10-2-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## polemic_turtle (Oct 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> I will give my Pastor's and Session's answer to which I agree fully: We ought not place more burden upon the baptismal candidate than we find in Scripture. They may be *very babes in Christ* and know nothing more but their simple need of Him (my very own experience).


So, either way, it's still infant baptism, right?


----------



## turmeric (Oct 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

In some ways, it is a bit surprising that Dr. Clark's comments regarding Baptists being in rebellion are so shocking to some. He calls them Brothers for sure but what else is he supposed to believe of their practice? How else is he supposed to view it as a man who believes God considers our little ones to be in the Covenant and commands their initiation?

I had commented on an article by Greg Welty on solideogloria.com and then responded to accusations by a friend of Mr. Welty that I misrepresented him. You can read that here if you like.

In his article, Mr. Welty compared the baptism of Covenant Children to the error of the Judaizers. Now, whether a weak or a strong analogy, here was a conscientious Baptist who was comparing the practice of applying the Covenant sign to infants to the "basic error" of the Judaizers. Of course, Paul twice curses the Judaizing error as a false Gospel.

My problem with Greg Welty's article was his exegesis to claim that the Judaizer's basic heresy was their view that circumcision was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. Paedobaptists, he insisted, commit the same fundamental error. It is quite common for Reformed or Confessional Baptists to view Paedobaptism as a form of "trusting in the flesh". In fact, it is in some ways, central to their rejection of infant baptism that they represent it as such.

Look, I'm not trying to turn this into a mud-slinging thing here but let's not feign shock as if we do not regard each other's positions as a fundamental error. That doesn't mean we can't call each other brother but I will continue to regard my Baptist brothers as being in rebellion of God's Word just as they will regard me as doing something akin to being a Judaizer. We don't have to pretend like it's all sugar and spice because we're all "5-pointers".

For my part, if I thought Baptists weren't brothers I wouldn't love them so dang much. I worship with them but grieve over the blessings they deny their children. I grieve that I cannot baptize my baby girl and have them rejoice with me and recognize what God is doing in their midst. I'll have to wait until I return to the States to see my daughter initiated into His Church.

Dr. Clark is only controversial because he is so clear in articulating the fact that there is an 800 lb gorilla in the living room.

While everyone is expressing shock at what Dr. Clark _wrote_ perhaps we ought to be more concerned about the vast majority of Baptist congregations who consider infant baptism to be completely invalid and would not allow a person, merely baptized as an infant, to become a communicant member of a congregation.

Now _that's_ divisive! 

[Edited on 10-2-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 2, 2006)

I wonder if John Owen, called for people to leave John Bunyan's church? I think the biggest objection to Dr. Clark's reasoning for his position is that he seems to equate every baptist today with the anabaptists of yesteryear. Yes they do have errors in common but also the reformed baptists of today are closer to us than the anabaptists. One should at least at some level recognize this point.

There is also the option of the reforming of various churches. Is it really necessary to advocate that one should leave as soon as possible?

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

Could you point me to the part where Dr. Clark equates "...every baptist with the anabaptists of yesteryear..."?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Could you point me to the part where Dr. Clark equates "...every baptist with the anabaptists of yesteryear..."?



He does it when he points out that Westminster rejected baptists from their assembly, as a good reason that we should also do so.

Or do you disagree with my assertion that Reformed Baptists of today have differences with Baptists of yesteryear?

But since you did decide to respond to my point, do you think Owen wrote or spoke as Dr. Clark, when he interacted with Bunyan's error?

CT

[Edited on 10-2-2006 by ChristianTrader]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


I assume this is what you're basing your assertion on:


> Why were there no baptists at the Westminster Assembly? Because they weren't invited. Why? Because they weren't regarded as Reformed? Anglicans were there, Independents were there, Presbyterians were there. but no Baptists.


Dr. Clark does understand the difference between Reformed Baptists, Particular Baptists, and Anabaptists and has even distinguished between them in other parts of the thread.

Are there any other people beside Jeff and Dr. Clark that you would like to make fallacious generalizations about?

[Edited on 10-2-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Everyone realizes that there are differences, the issue is if they are relevant. He seems to believe that they are not. I have not seen a reason to take that view seriously.

Especially considering Owen's stance towards Bunyan (which you have the right to call wrong, silly, etc., but he is still John Owen. He can also quoted as saying how he loved to sit under his preaching and how he wished that he had his skills).

On top of this my initial post made the point about Reform.

Again what in the world makes the issue so bad that one should leave as soon as one is able to carry ones self away.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

Those, I think, are reasonable questions that folks can dialogue with. I'll formulate a response after I put my kids to bed...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 2, 2006)

Dear Hermonta,

No, I don't equate all Baptists with Anabaptists. I've written on this frequently on this board. 

Applying BC 29 to modern Baptists is somewhat problematic because, as I've noted, there were no predestinarian Baptists (at least of the variety that came to exist in the 17th century) in 1561. 

The Anabaptists were regarded as a "sect" (a "cult" in today's terms) because of their denial of justification sola fide, their view of civil life and their view of baptism, among others. 

The modern Baptists are not identical to Anabaptists, but as I think I pointed out in this thread, they do have at least one thing in common with them: they deny baptism to covenant children.

The main thing we have in common with most predestinarian Baptists is predestination. We have more in common with confessional Baptists such as the ARBCA folk. 

By calling them "rebellious brothers" I've tried to acknowledge that fact. We have less in common, however, with those (e.g., FIRE) who don't subscribe strictly or closely the LBC and the like.

One way to put the question is this:

The CT essay assumes that so long as one believes in predestination, one is Reformed. The CT essay further assumes the evangelical rejection of the doctrine of the church and sacraments.

I reject those three assumptions and I think all confessional Reformed folk such reject them. 

Yes, we are predestinarian, but we confess much more than predestination and, in order to be Reformed, one must confess the entire Reformed confession, including church and sacraments. 

Another way to analyze this question is to distinguish between substance and accidents. The doctrines of Church and sacraments are undeniably as _essential_ to being Reformed as the doctrine of predestination. The evangelicals, however, regard the doctrines of church and sacraments as _accidental_ to being Reformed because what matters for them most is unmediated religious experience which leads them to doctrinal minimalism. It's part of their pietist heritage.

Clearly the doctrine of predestination is necessary to being Reformed but it is not sufficient to make one Reformed or else a good number of Patristic and medieval theologians, with whom we have little else in common, must be regarded as Reformed.

Predestination is a catholic doctrine, like the doctrine of the Trinity. It has not been as widely held as the doctrine of the Trinity, but remarkably few theologians and "churches," until modern times, have been willing to deny it outrightly. Because we live in a context where its denial is widespread, that someone embraces it makes some of us want to embrace them as "Reformed." I'm holding out, however, for the older, narrower, and confessional definition of Reformed.

As to Owen and Bunyan, it may be true that Owen never called for folk to leave Bunyan's congregation. There are probably a number of things on which Owen and I might disagree, e.g., Owen was an independent, and I hold a presbyterial polity. Owen didn't confess the BC formally and didn't have to face this problem. I recognize that most American Presbyterians don't hold my view and that my view is a minority position. 

As I've tried to suggest, I think that most of the divines would have agreed with me, especially the Presbyterians and Anglicans and I'm sure that the Scots-Irish Old Siders agreed with me over against the New Side/Revivalists and later the New School/Revivalists. I don't know whether the Old School fellows would agree with me, but they were sometimes a little soft on the revivalists for my taste.

Where there is the real possibility of genuine reform, I think folk should stay, though there is a difference to be made between what laity and officers should do. If the officers of a congregation are willing to reform it according to the Word as confessed by the Reformed churches, that's one thing. If the officers are opposed to reform, then I can't see how laity should stay in what is not a true church. In general, I think BC 29 means what it says, that Christians should unite themselves to true churches. 

The 16th c. church did face a similar problem of Nicodemism (forgive me if I'm repeating myself). Folk often said to Calvin and others, "I'm with you in the Reformation but I can't leave my local Roman parish because...." Calvin called them Nicodemites. They come to Jesus when no one can see but they hide in the day when folk can see. This is a widespread problem, so much so that some of us are re-thinking the whole business of "conferences" as a sort of Reformed revivalism. What good does it do to speak at conferences where hundreds, maybe thousands of folk attend, many of them from broad evangelical churches, if we never get to ECCLESIOLOGY and sacraments, if they never leave their evangelical mega-churches because First Megachurch has a great ___ program? We're just helping to create more predestinarian sectarians. It accepts the minimalist, experience-centered evangelical assumption.

I realize that this is an unpopular view. When Carl Trueman said something like it on the Ref21 blog it almost melted. Some sacred cows cannot be gored, apparently. 

The $64K question is how to get more of the 60 million evangelicals out of their less-than-churches and into Reformed confessing congregations? It requires a radical paradigm shift away from the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience and Certainty and toward the embrace of a Christ-centered reading of Scripture, an appreciation of the law as law and the gospel as gospel, and an appreciation for revealed truth, and an appreciation for the divine institution of the visible church and the visible means of grace. That's a lot to ask of folk which is probably one reason why NAPARC is only about 500K as opposed to 5 million.

It doesn't mean we should quit trying, however. "This Jesus whom you crucified, God has made him both Lord and Christ."

rsc



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> I wonder if John Owen, called for people to leave John Bunyan's church? I think the biggest objection to Dr. Clark's reasoning for his position is that he seems to equate every baptist today with the Anabaptists of yesteryear. Yes they do have errors in common but also the reformed baptists of today are closer to us than the Anabaptists. One should at least at some level recognize this point.
> 
> There is also the option of the reforming of various churches. Is it really necessary to advocate that one should leave as soon as possible?
> ...



[Edited on 10-2-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Augusta (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Where there is the real possibility of genuine reform, I think folk should stay, though there is a difference to be made between what laity and officers should do. If the officers of a congregation are willing to reform it according to the Word as confessed by the Reformed churches, that's one thing. If the officers are opposed to reform, then I can't see how laity should stay in what is not a true church. In general, I think BC 29 means what it says, that Christians should unite themselves to true churches.
> 
> This is a widespread problem, so much so that some of us are re-thinking the whole business of "conferences" as a sort of Reformed revivalism. What good does it do to speak at conferences where hundreds, maybe thousands of folk attend, many of them from broad evangelical churches, if we never get to ECCLESIOLOGY and sacraments, if they never leave their evangelical mega-churches because First Megachurch has a great ___ program? We're just helping to create more predestinarian sectarians. It accepts the minimalist, experience-centered evangelical assumption.






I totally agree. It has gotten to where we all need to unite under one tightly defined banner and stand together. For me that would be the *original * WCF and the three forms of unity. Back to the sources!!


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 2, 2006)

> One way to put the question is this:
> 
> The CT essay assumes that so long as one believes in predestination, one is Reformed. The CT essay further assumes the evangelical rejection of the doctrine of the church and sacraments.
> 
> I reject those three assumptions and I think all confessional Reformed folk such reject them.



I honestly must be missing something? What’s under discussion is the recent cover story that appeared in Christianity Today right? So, CT is a little too loose in its definition of Reformed. Big deal. As far as I can tell, and I haven’t actually read CT in some years, they’re way too loose in their definition of Christianity. I was just pleased to read that a bunch of predestinarian Baptists are causing some trouble in the SBC. That’s what I got from the article.

BTW, I like the new additions to the smilies. But you really need a GHC. You need at least something to balance out the  I guess you'll have to get a John Gill as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

There is a Gordon Clark:






There's even this one:



that you can use in your signature line if you would like.

You just have use the URL and open and close them with the img tag.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 2, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

You wrote:


> I realize that this is an unpopular view. When Carl Trueman said something like it on the Ref21 blog it almost melted. Some sacred cows cannot be gored, apparently.



I was skimming a bit, at first, and thought you wrote *scared* cows.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



It might be easier to unite under the altered WCF before going after the unaltered one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



Right, let's aim small for the moment. While we need to get back to the original WCF on the civil magistrate, it might take some time.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Right, let's aim small for the moment. While we need to get back to the original WCF on the civil magistrate, it might take some time.



Not sure if that was a postmil comment or not... It is in that it will happen. The might take some time sounds a bit pessimistic...


----------



## Scott (Oct 2, 2006)

I find it interesting that the article says that Baptist Al Mohler rid his seminary of all but a handful of professors because he made the ones who wanted to stay on sign onto a confession based on the WCF.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Right. Here is how it will happen. First, Empress Hillary will win in 2008 and her storm troopers will descend on our freedom-loving countrymen. We will rebel and probably win. That will start up several small republics (which was the Founders' intent all along). Then it will be easier to see the Original Confession established.


----------



## MW (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> It might be easier to unite under the altered WCF before going after the unaltered one.



I think it would be better to meet further down the road of reformation. There is a small group of people who still subscribe to the original confession, who are waiting for you to make your way down there. Festina lente!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 2, 2006)

On WCF 25 I just ran across,

R. D. Anderson, "Of the Church: An Historical Overview of the WCF, Chapter 25" _Westminster Theological Journal_ 59 (1997): 177-97.

He concludes "An approach more faithful to the intent of the Confession is, I believe, to see here the moral imperative for churches to work toward federative unity with each other."

He criticizes the American revision of 23.2 which makes denominationalism an acceptable state of affairs;

He links WCF 25 to the BC.

It's an argument for Reformed confessional ecumenicity.

rsc


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Amen Matthew!


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> There is a Gordon Clark:
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks. Unfortunately every time I click on the Paul Manata icon I get


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...


----------



## tewilder (Oct 6, 2006)

Well, here is where the rubber meets the road:

http://riverbendchurch.com/happenings.asp?p=new-facility

With this sort of "reformed" theology you can build a mega-church and pay for the facilities through an "_Abounding in Grace_ fund drive".


----------



## Magma2 (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> Well, here is where the rubber meets the road:
> 
> http://riverbendchurch.com/happenings.asp?p=new-facility
> ...



I never heard of Riverbend church, but are mega churches by definition unconfessional or somehow not Reformed due to their size or silly names they give their building programs? What about James Kennedy's mega church? I used to attend a small PCA church that built a new worship center and they called their fund raising drive "The Nehemiah Project." Was the rubber meeting the road there as well? I guess I'm just not getting your point?

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Ivan (Oct 6, 2006)

I've never heard of the church either, but I fail to see the problem. I'll admit that I did a quick look at the website, but I saw a lot of good things. 

BTW, there is a very "moderate" SBC church in Austin, Texas by the name of "Riverbend". At first I thought you were talking about that church. Now that church I would have issues with.


----------

