Mark Jones has Challenged Scott Clark to a Debate
- Thread starter TylerRay
- Start date
- Status
Someone, somewhere, said something perceptibly wrong, on the internet. Ergo, someone else, somewhere else, needed to say something else about that, on the internet. Then, someone further, somewhere further, saw that someone else, somewhere else, said something else about aformenetioned someone. Ergo, the someone further needed to say something further, in defense of someone, somewhere . . . on the internet.
Someone on another forum suggested that The Confessional Presbyterian host the debate under the Sic et Non rubric.
Where was this cruel suggestion made?
Seriously, though, if not a live debate, maybe there would be an agreement to do papers? And it would not have to be for a journal; and it would certainly be better than nothing.It was passed to me through Reddit, which I don't quite understand, so don't know if I could find it again for you!Where was this cruel suggestion made?
Better than nothing for sure.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Mark Jones wrote a series of articles on Justification for Ref 21 a few years ago. Here is one he reposted today that may help clarify things.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/10/one-or-two-justifications.php
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/10/one-or-two-justifications.php
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
@R. Scott Clark: do you care to share your thoughts?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I haven't read why Dr. Clark declined to debate. One reason, though, might be that he has said that he's currently in the middle of three large writing projects. Those are probably eating up most of his spare time.
http://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-proposed-october-2017-meeting-dear.html?m=1
Don't skip the comments section.
Jerome Rosana
Puritan Board Freshman
I read the comment section of Gordon's blog.. MJ suddenly changed his tone after his first comment. He honestly admitted somethings.
1. I am a pastor not a theologian
2. Open on correction about Ursinus
3. Haven't read a Norman Sheperd stuff
4. He admitted his offence.
1. I am a pastor not a theologian
2. Open on correction about Ursinus
3. Haven't read a Norman Sheperd stuff
4. He admitted his offence.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
The latest from Dr. Jones.
Makes me wonder, "Why didn't he just say this in the first place??" The introduction of terms like "final salvation" and talking about salvation as if it is in any sense a two-stage process is what has led to so much controversy.
Something I came across that I think is very helpful here:
This faith, we teach, purifies the heart, and always inclines us to holiness of life. Nor do we hold any faith to be true and saving that does not show itself by good works, without which no man is or can be justified, either in his own conscience, or before men. But it does not follow from this that we cannot be justified in the sight of God by faith only — because the apostle Paul asserts the latter, and the apostle James the former, both in good agreement. – Robert Traill
Makes me wonder, "Why didn't he just say this in the first place??" The introduction of terms like "final salvation" and talking about salvation as if it is in any sense a two-stage process is what has led to so much controversy.
Something I came across that I think is very helpful here:
This faith, we teach, purifies the heart, and always inclines us to holiness of life. Nor do we hold any faith to be true and saving that does not show itself by good works, without which no man is or can be justified, either in his own conscience, or before men. But it does not follow from this that we cannot be justified in the sight of God by faith only — because the apostle Paul asserts the latter, and the apostle James the former, both in good agreement. – Robert Traill
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Exactly.
I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.
Intermingling justification and works, even in passing, tends to cause all sorts of unrest. The doctrine is important, but must be dealt with with sharp distinctions.
Anyone responsible would make these distinctions. Intermingling only causes confusion and at face value, to which I would agree w/ RSC, sounds like FV junk.
'Pardon our lack of clarity, but it's the other guy's fault'?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
I understand. Both are blaming the other...Personally, I side w/ RSC on this matter-I don't agree either party has handled the thing correctly, mind you; But I have read some of Jones' statements in amplifying what Piper originally said and I believe he has taken Piper out of context.
Correct on blame (I have my bias but have not read enough to say I take a side; the whole manner of this thing leaves a lot to be desired); though I was mainly characterizing the evasiveness you said you got from the one side on that FB exchange.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
The comments section in which Dr. Jones clarified helped immensely. I too, though, have not read enough to come down on either side but, I did not disagree with what Dr. Jones said in those comments.
Perhaps I am too simplistic (I mean this earnestly), but I have always thought one of the best pithy expressions on this matter under discussion is from our own Larger Catechism (WLC #32). It can easily be passed over, but notice the careful language of the Westminster Divines (my emphases added):
1. Faith is the "condition" to interest sinners in Christ.
2. Justifying faith is the gift of God given to His elect (Eph. 2).
3. The effects -not the cause- of justifying faith are good works, "which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2.10).
4. Even the best of these "good works" are tainted with sin, which is proof enough that they are not the cause of, nor anyway contributory to, our justification.
5. In this vale of tears, all of these things serve not only as the evidence of the truth of our faith, but are also means God has appointed along the path to salvation. In other words, they are a part of the package.
6. Christianity is a path, a journey, a way, a race, to a final destination in eternity. There is a definitive road (I'm think of the Pilgrim's Progress), and if one strays perpetually from that path, it will not be on the way to that eternal Zion.
7. Those truly regenerated, justified by Christ through saving faith, will never stray too far nor too long from that path, and will always find that way back, having their feet washed from the dirt of the world. Clinging to the promises and to Christ Himself.
So, it seems, a healthy dose of preaching the whole counsel of God, patiently giving words of encouragement of the unequivocal promises of the Gospel to tender consciences, while not giving comfort to the presumptuous hypocrisy of mere professors (and do we not see seeds of both temperaments in our hearts? I certainly do!) to stay in their sins, is in order. Another good statement from our Confessional Standards (WCF 16.2, my emphases added):
Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.
1. Faith is the "condition" to interest sinners in Christ.
2. Justifying faith is the gift of God given to His elect (Eph. 2).
3. The effects -not the cause- of justifying faith are good works, "which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2.10).
4. Even the best of these "good works" are tainted with sin, which is proof enough that they are not the cause of, nor anyway contributory to, our justification.
5. In this vale of tears, all of these things serve not only as the evidence of the truth of our faith, but are also means God has appointed along the path to salvation. In other words, they are a part of the package.
6. Christianity is a path, a journey, a way, a race, to a final destination in eternity. There is a definitive road (I'm think of the Pilgrim's Progress), and if one strays perpetually from that path, it will not be on the way to that eternal Zion.
7. Those truly regenerated, justified by Christ through saving faith, will never stray too far nor too long from that path, and will always find that way back, having their feet washed from the dirt of the world. Clinging to the promises and to Christ Himself.
So, it seems, a healthy dose of preaching the whole counsel of God, patiently giving words of encouragement of the unequivocal promises of the Gospel to tender consciences, while not giving comfort to the presumptuous hypocrisy of mere professors (and do we not see seeds of both temperaments in our hearts? I certainly do!) to stay in their sins, is in order. Another good statement from our Confessional Standards (WCF 16.2, my emphases added):
II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
This is why the issue(s) even exist.
Calvin said he was first a scholar in order to be a good pastor.
If pastors do not want to be good theologians, they should quickly retire and spare their congregations the hurt they'll eventually cause.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't think this comment is fair or helpful. Whatever Mark Jones meant by that comment, clearly we all know he IS both a theologian and a pastor. And like Calvin, he was a theologian (Doctorate) before a pastor. Please be more gracious in how we speak about a Reformed pastor, who our Lord has called.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Please pause to consider this debate from a different perspective. For those who seem to suggest Mark Jones or John Piper have introduced "final justification" or "final salvation" as some "new dangerous terminology" that is muddying the waters... hasn't this terminology been used for years and years? I don't see many people complaining too much about WTS' Greg Beale's usage of the phrase which has been going on since what - at least 2011? And Michael Horton's use of "final salvation" since at least 2006? How many other Reformed pastors and professors today are using similar terminology without it causing mass confusion? If they are causing great confusion, have we heard about it? And it seems that even though we have read them use these terms, most of us just haven't noticed or blinked an eye when we read the term - we knew what they meant.
Do we have a clearer term in "vindication"? Sure. But that hasn't stopped some from using these phrases for whatever reason. Some of them haven't taken too much heat, while others have. Could they have been clearer? Probably. But how hard should we come down on them if they were unclear? "I believe you meant well. Please be clearer in the future?" Or "Watch out! He's a heretic who denies justification by faith alone! Burn his books!"
Yes, we know that N.T. Wright's use of the phrase has been criticized and R. Scott Clark has loudly denounced the phrase as a Federal Vision term. But isn't it one thing to suggest to our pastors: "Please, let's be clearer and use vindication," but another to throw the "FV" label at a few of the guys who use the term? It would have been nice if this debate had been less heated from the start and more grace shown.
Why do we not speak to our pastors in private before going to the blogs? Is there a great danger of us falling into gossip? Or into sin? Of destroying a pastor's reputation when there was no need? Of missing 1 Timothy 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father, and the younger men as brethren..." Does John Piper feel he was exhorted as a respected and loved father?
Isn't it in our church orders to speak to pastors privately first? If your pastor speaks unclearly or you are confused by something they said, graciously go talk to him PRIVATELY and ask him to explain what he meant. Don't assume the worst of a man trained and called by God. Don't assume you have super discernment and without a doubt discovered "some FV heretic" in your midst and his elders and the rest of the congregation are all blind. Give him the benefit of the doubt. We are humans and we error - both the speaker and the listener. And if it's not us, language can just be confusing itself. Give him a chance to speak clearer. Don't be too hasty to cause division among God's church and seek to destroy the calling and career of a Reformed minister. A pastor's heart does not seek to mislead the layman. We should not jump to assume our pastors are "FV liars" and we should be very careful with our accusations - especially public ones.
P.S. And please, let us check our hearts and make sure we actually love John Piper. And love R. Scott Clark. And love Mark Jones. Really. Not love only one and not the others. And not seek to destroy or harm any of God's precious teachers or the flock. Guard against our natural sinful desire to choose sides in this one family - as if it is okay for there to even be any sides.
Do we have a clearer term in "vindication"? Sure. But that hasn't stopped some from using these phrases for whatever reason. Some of them haven't taken too much heat, while others have. Could they have been clearer? Probably. But how hard should we come down on them if they were unclear? "I believe you meant well. Please be clearer in the future?" Or "Watch out! He's a heretic who denies justification by faith alone! Burn his books!"
Yes, we know that N.T. Wright's use of the phrase has been criticized and R. Scott Clark has loudly denounced the phrase as a Federal Vision term. But isn't it one thing to suggest to our pastors: "Please, let's be clearer and use vindication," but another to throw the "FV" label at a few of the guys who use the term? It would have been nice if this debate had been less heated from the start and more grace shown.
Why do we not speak to our pastors in private before going to the blogs? Is there a great danger of us falling into gossip? Or into sin? Of destroying a pastor's reputation when there was no need? Of missing 1 Timothy 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father, and the younger men as brethren..." Does John Piper feel he was exhorted as a respected and loved father?
Isn't it in our church orders to speak to pastors privately first? If your pastor speaks unclearly or you are confused by something they said, graciously go talk to him PRIVATELY and ask him to explain what he meant. Don't assume the worst of a man trained and called by God. Don't assume you have super discernment and without a doubt discovered "some FV heretic" in your midst and his elders and the rest of the congregation are all blind. Give him the benefit of the doubt. We are humans and we error - both the speaker and the listener. And if it's not us, language can just be confusing itself. Give him a chance to speak clearer. Don't be too hasty to cause division among God's church and seek to destroy the calling and career of a Reformed minister. A pastor's heart does not seek to mislead the layman. We should not jump to assume our pastors are "FV liars" and we should be very careful with our accusations - especially public ones.
P.S. And please, let us check our hearts and make sure we actually love John Piper. And love R. Scott Clark. And love Mark Jones. Really. Not love only one and not the others. And not seek to destroy or harm any of God's precious teachers or the flock. Guard against our natural sinful desire to choose sides in this one family - as if it is okay for there to even be any sides.
Last edited:
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Psyche, most of what you wrote I can add a hearty "Amen" to. The only issue I would raise is the issue of privately speaking to a person about his public ministry. Matthew 18 is not about public offenses, but private ("if your brother (singular) sins against you (singular)"). Galatians 2 shows us what happens with public offenses. Whatever arena the offense was committed in needs to be the arena in which the correction takes place. Not everything a pastor does is public, but his teaching and preaching ministry is definitely public. It is right to ask questions in public. The overheated rhetoric is not helpful, as it tends to cast more heat than light on matters. It needs to focus on the doctrinal matters at hand. But asking questions about a pastor's public teaching can certainly happen publicly, even while it is also realized that if charges need to be filed, then that needs to happen through the church courts.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for your comment and thoughts, Rev. Keister. Although I greatly appreciate Mt 18 (which like you said is quite a different context regarding specific sins), my aim was not to apply it here. But simply encourage 1 Tim 5:1, common sense, treating others as you would want to be treated and putting others before ourselves. Additionally, imagine the chaos that would ensue if congregants and visitors who "heard something unexpected" immediately ran to blogs and social media to "warn the flock" and "destroy the career of that heretic" preacher.
Yes, I'm aware "we are able to go public if someone wrote/spoke publicly." But under this excuse of "being able to" I've seen professors slander others, rage wars, print falsehoods, cause great damage to the reputations of one another and divide and destroy the unity of Christ's church. This should not be. Yes, we are able. But there is a higher road and we should encourage one another to take it. That higher road is to love one another and treat one another as we would want to be treated and to put others before ourselves. If someone discovers I write something in error, I would certainly prefer and hope they would contacted me privately to correct me, rather than putting me on blast before the entire world - for a genuine mistake or oversight.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Note that this controversy began because of some inflammatory statements on the Desiring God blog.
Jerome Rosana
Puritan Board Freshman
Who is the editor of calvinistinternational anyway?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Psyche, there is no doubt that much harm has been done by rushing too quickly to conclusions about an off-handed comment that is taken out of context. It reminds me of this cartoon, which is SO apropos. As has been pointed out, the original comment was already on a blog. So, there should be great thought and prayer put into any attempt to correct a person's theological statements, especially online. I wrote about it here. But the correction should be in the same forum.
What must also be considered, however, is that a public statement, if incorrect and uncorrected can do just as much damage online to the sheep as a reckless dealing with it could. That is why the forum for correction needs to be as close as possible to the forum of the original error, so that the people involved in the original incident will be as close as possible to the number of people who are involved in the correction.
When I take a vow concerning submission to my brothers in the Lord, part of that involves being willing to have my public teaching and preaching come under public scrutiny. If someone misunderstands me, I can correct that gently and with understanding. As pastors, our public teaching is (and should be!) constantly under scrutiny. I would not want that any other way, because the cost of having it any other way is too great: misleading the sheep. I would much rather submit to various indignities and slights to my good name (and I have had plenty in my current years of ministry, make no mistake) than to have one sheep be misled by something I say.
Jerome Rosana
Puritan Board Freshman
It's Hardly Wrapped-Up: A Response From John Lewis:
https://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/its-hardly-wrapped-up-response-from.html?m=1
https://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/its-hardly-wrapped-up-response-from.html?m=1
- Status
