Baptism, Election, and Covenant (part 1)

[R. Scott Clark]

Part 1 is on the web now.

 

[turmeric]

Very clear. Thanks!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks Dr. Clark.

The folks at Covenant Radio recently interviewed Pastor Wilson. They used some of the questions I had asked of them. In one way I'm glad he came out and said some things but then would take them away with the other hand.

Here is one of the questions I asked him (I wasn't on the phone but it was read and I heard it after the fact):

Is there ever a time, historically or finally, when God looks at a person who is ultimately reprobate (never regenerated) and sees that person as forgiven, covered by the Blood of Christ and having Christ's righteousness applied to that person? Is there ever a time that the person temporarily possesses those gifts and then loses them?

He answered "No". That was nice but then he did something strange. He said that there were other ways that the Scriptures speak of forgiveness. The text he cited to support this claim? The parable of the ungrateful servant who is forgiven a huge debt and then throttles a debtor who owes him a few cents. A parable. He didn't flesh it out but simply said there are other forms of forgiveness. Very frustrating.

The other thing he did was mention you, Dr. Clark. He agreed that you would know much more about the formulation of the historic Reformed faith and confessions. He admitted it on the air.

Why is this important? Because when he came to the subject of what he confessed, he affirmed, strenuously, that he was simply using Confessional language and talking the way the Confessions would. He claimed to be bound, confessionally, to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I was floored because I assumed he wasn't bound to any Confession. But I heard him say, on the air, that he subscribed, and was bound, to the WCF.

OK, so Pastor Wilson claims there are those, such as yourself, who understand how these Confessions were formed better than he. Thus, I am left with this nagging question:

WHY ISN'T HE LISTENING TO OTHERS MORE QUALIFIED THAN HE TO LEARN WHAT THE HISTORIC REFORMED CONFESSIONS CONFESS?!

I mean, really, if he admits his relative ignorance to those who have studied them more, it seems very odd that he argues with them. He never proves that the WCF divines intended to confess what the FV teaches - he just repeatedly asserts it. FV proponents take the language of the Confession and re-interpret it to match their doctrines or they dispute that the Divines ever repudiated their ideas. It's time they start "proving" this rather than just asserting it.

Thank you for another article that reminds us what the HISTORIC Reformed position is on Baptism. Maybe it will help if they keep a tally of the things that they're re-defining. We need more articles that show that their statements and definitions are not historic but novel.

Oh, and by the way, he must have thrown out that all objections of their theology are "Baptistic" about 20 times in the 1 hour interview. Dr. Clark a Baptist? Now that's funny!

 

[Poimen]

w

Thanks Dr. Clark.

The folks at Covenant Radio recently interviewed Pastor Wilson. They used some of the questions I had asked of them. In one way I'm glad he came out and said some things but then would take them away with the other hand.

Here is one of the questions I asked him (I wasn't on the phone but it was read and I heard it after the fact):

He answered "No". That was nice but then he did something strange. He said that there were other ways that the Scriptures speak of forgiveness. The text he cited to support this claim? The parable of the ungrateful servant who is forgiven a huge debt and then throttles a debtor who owes him a few cents. A parable. He didn't flesh it out but simply said there are other forms of forgiveness. Very frustrating.

Rich:

Though I do not believe it is entirely pointless to interact with and criticize the FV men for their ambiguity, experience has taught me that you won't get very far asking the tough questions because in order to avoid the obvious implications of their teaching they must obscure every theological loci in ambiguity.

'Fuzziness' may be the way to go but of course it is the theologian's 'Pandora's Box.'

http://barach.us/2007/01/31/fuzziness/

 

[smhbbag]

He said that there were other ways that the Scriptures speak of forgiveness.

On this I think he was correct, though the example he gave was way off-base.

Many times in the Old Testament, it speaks of God 'forgiving' a certain, particular sin - whether or not that person has been completely forgiven in the salvific sense. In those texts, it appears something can rightly be called "forgiveness" from God, without necessarily implying justification for the individual.

Num 30:5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

Of course, knowing no Hebrew, this could be a quirk of translations that approximate a nuanced meaning with a simple "forgive."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

w

Rich:

Though I do not believe it is entirely pointless to interact with and criticize the FV men for their ambiguity, experience has taught me that you won't get very far asking the tough questions because in order to avoid the obvious implications of their teaching they must obscure every theological loci in ambiguity.

'Fuzziness' may be the way to go but of course it is the theologian's 'Pandora's Box.'

http://barach.us/2007/01/31/fuzziness/

I expect a little fuziness from them on issues that could be nuanced. To claim, however, that one's understanding of Conditional Election was either not spoken to or tacitly endorsed by the WCF is simply disingenuous. He spoke "unfuzzily" about that. As long as they're going to claim that criticism of them is based on Baptistic corruption of true Reformed theology and they're being charged simply for using historic language, they need to be challenged on it.

 

[Poimen]

I expect a little fuziness from them on issues that could be nuanced. To claim, however, that one's understanding of Conditional Election was either not spoken to or tacitly endorsed by the WCF is simply disingenuous. He spoke "unfuzzily" about that. As long as they're going to claim that criticism of them is based on Baptistic corruption of true Reformed theology and they're being charged simply for using historic language, they need to be challenged on it.

You will receive no disagreement with me on these points but I think the challenge that you mention will only assist believers who are struggling with these issues, not the FV men themselves. They have demonstrated, time and time again, callous disregard for the warnings and admonition of their Reformed betters (i.e. critics).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

On this I think he was correct, though the example he gave was way off-base.

Many times in the Old Testament, it speaks of God 'forgiving' a certain, particular sin - whether or not that person has been completely forgiven in the salvific sense. In those texts, it appears something can rightly be called "forgiveness" from God, without necessarily implying justification for the individual.

Of course, knowing no Hebrew, this could be a quirk of translations that approximate a nuanced meaning with a simple "forgive."

The context of the question, however, makes it clear what I'm really asking given the backdrop of what the FV claims. What they will do is take NT passages where Paul is addressing a Church (Galatia, Ephesus, etc) and speak of the benefits that "we" have in Christ Jesus - pardon of sins, union with Him in His death and resurrection, etc. They then argue that, because the Churches consisted of both elect and reprobate members, Paul is purposefully speaking in this way knowing that his address refers to both in their own "senses".

I used forgiveness of sins as an example. They'll see a passage that speaks of the full remission of sins for those in Christ Jesus. Since Paul knows he's addressing at least one reprobate man, by their reasoning, that man must be in Christ Jesus in some sense. While in Covenant he participates in that benefit of the forgiveness of sins. It's not the man's faith in the finished work of Christ (given as a gift) that instrumentally joins him to Christ but his covenantal participation.

I can't imagine Pastor Wilson not knowing what I was really asking here though one might give him the benefit of the doubt. The parable he cites, however, is problematic. His response obscures the issue because, to the uninitiated, it looks like he has a support for a doctrine of "forgiveness in some sense". I was never asking for a way in which forgiveness might be used in terms of a monetary debt or some other non-salvific sense in the first place. I wanted to know how they can say a man can have forgiveness of sins, in Christ Jesus, ever, if he is reprobate. Also, the parable is just that - a parable. It might be appealed to as an object lesson of forgiving because we have been forgiven but Jesus Himself warns not to form doctrines from the stories He tells.

I know Pastor Wilson is more sophisticated than that and I was extremely disappointed he resorted to such a weak response. He had an opportunity to unequivocally set aside an idea that true forgiveness of sins is grounded in nothing less than Christ and that union with Him is by faith alone and not by any other instrument, temporally or eternally.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me clarify this for everyone's benefit because I had a PM about this and I don't want others wondering what I mean:

I wrote:
"...Jesus Himself warns not to form doctrines from the stories He tells."

I'm referring to this passage:

[bible]Matthew 13:10-15[/bible]
I should have been more precise. We ought not to form doctrine from a parable unless either Christ or His disciples explained it to us. He purposefully spoke in Parables to ensure that the message was NOT clear to all. Pastor Wilson, of all people, should know better than to go to a Parable to support a doctrinal claim. He needs to go to didactic teaching in the Epistles (or if Christ ever explained that parable, which He did not).

 

[JOwen]

smoken' article.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Thanks for the article, it was great. I just backed it up with you speaking on the Narrow Mind on the Federal Vision. Also great.