According to R. Scott Clark:
***QUOTE***
One is not entitled to posit a new definition of person and then say “but I affirm the creedal notion of person too.” They incompatible. The creeds do not equate person with substance. One cannot equate them as one pleases and distinguish them as one pleases.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17988&page=1
***END-QUOTE***
Notice what is missing from this statement. Clark doesn’t tell us what the credal notion of a person is. Do the creeds define “person”?
Likewise, what’s the credal notion of a “substance”?
This raises an interesting question. When a WSC grad comes before his ordination board, in what sense is he required to affirm the credal notion of a person?
Unlike a graduate of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, I doubt that the average WSC graduate has mastered the primary and secondary literature on the Greek Fathers.
So whose usage is determinative?
Must an ordinand affirm the credal notion of “person” (or “substance”) according to original intent?
If so, how many WSC grads are competent to render an informed judgment on that question?
I’m not singling out WSC. I only mention it because that happens to be Clark’s preferred frame of reference.
But the question is relevant to Evangelical seminaries in general, which do not specialize in patristics.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
There is a difference between speaking about God's essence and claiming to know what it is or to know God as he is in himself. I don't have to know God "as he is in himself" to be able to say that God has an essence or that his essence is utterly transcendent.
We know that God is who/what he is/will be, but we don't know God AS he is.
This is a fundamental Biblical and Protestant distinction. Scripture is accommodated. All of it. We never have contact with God as he is in himself. God, in se, is wholly other.
***END-QUOTE***
Several problems here:
1.Clark is endorsing apophatic theology. We know that God has an essence, but we don’t know what his essence is.
But if this is so, then we don’t know what God is really like.
2.Apropos (1), how can we speak truthfully “about” God’s essence if his essence is ineffable and/or inscrutable?
To what does his statement correspond? Clark is making a claim about the essence of God, but according to his own claim, his claim cannot correspond to the object to which it refers.
3.Clark’s basic confusion is a failure to distinguish between the divine mode of knowledge, which is incommunicable, and God as an object of knowledge, which is communicable.
Human beings cannot reproduce the divine mode of knowledge, but it hardly follows from this that God cannot be an object of knowledge.
4.If Clark’s position were correct, then we’d be idolaters. For if what we believe about God fails to correspond to what God is really like, then we are guilty of idolatry—which is the archetypal sin.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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…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.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20939
***END-QUOTE***
Why should a Calvinist automatically leave a non-Reformed church? For one thing, why shouldn’t he use his insider position to bear witness to the doctrines of grace?
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
Notice the viciously circular nature of this appeal. What about, say, the London Baptist Confession of Faith?
Is this a Reformed confession or not? To say that it’s not a Reformed Confession because it disagrees with Dort or Westminster on certain points simply begs the question in favor of Dort or Westminster.
Truth by definition.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
So the SBC is not a true church? The Amish don’t have a true church?
What, in Clark’s opinion, is the relationship between a “true” church and a “Christian” church?
Is he saying that a denomination or theological tradition can be Christian, but be false, or is he saying that the SBC or Amish aren’t even Christian?
***QUOTE***
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."
***END-QUOTE***
So we shouldn’t fellowship with fellow Christians unless they are Reformed?
Where is the Scriptural justification for this restriction? Why would we not regard all Christians as members of the same family? As long as someone is a brother-in-Christ, why would I automatically disfellowship him because he isn’t a Calvinist?
Continuing:
***QUOTE***
I get along well with my ARBCA brothers. I regard them as rebels.
***END-QUOTE***
I suspect that if they knew what he thought of them, he might hit a bump in the road.
***QUOTE***
They ought to unite with a true church.
***END-QUOTE***
So only a Reformed church is a true church. A Lutheran church is not a true church, which must mean a Lutheran church is a false church. Is that the idea?
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
According to William Young, the category of “covenant child” is a theological innovation which does not represent traditional Reformed theology.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
What Anabaptists are we talking about, exactly? Historic Anabaptists living at the time of the Belgic Confession?
“Anabaptism” is a cover term for a fairly diverse group of people, especially in the 16C.
How does that correspond to modern-day Anabaptism?
Clark acts as if there’s no possible difference between the historical referent and the contemporary referent.
Maybe there isn’t, but that can’t be taken for granted. One must make allowance for the passage of time.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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?
***END-QUOTE***
One of the problems with Clark’s appeal to the creeds is his misconception of the function of the creeds.
Creeds don’t tell us what we ought to believe. Rather, creeds are a witness to what professing Christians do believe.
Creeds purport to tell us what we ought to believe, but of course, different creeds differ on what we ought to believe.
For example, the Racovian catechism purports to tell us what we ought to believe, but I rather doubt that Clark would appeal to the Racovian catechism.
So, at some point, we need to dial back the discussion to Scripture. Which creeds got it right?
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
Is Clark saying that the LBCF excludes church and sacraments?
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
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.
***END-QUOTE***
I see. So, according to Clark’s definition, Archbishop Laud was truly Reformed, but John Piper is not. Okay.
Moving along:
***QUOTE***
The definition of "Reformed" is the Reformed confessions.
***END-QUOTE***
Very well, then, let’s take the Westminster Standards. This includes the Westminster Directory of Worship.
Does Clark observe the Puritan style of worship? If not, then he’s not truly Reformed, is he?
What about the Pope as the Antichrist? This would logically commit him to the historicist school of interpretation vis-à-vis Rev 13. Is that Clark’s position?
It would also commit him to the Solemn League & Covenant. Is he waiting for Bonnie Prince Charlie to come charging over the hill?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteActually, Dr. Clark is a minister in the URC classis that I am a member of - so he is a 3 Forms of Unity guy. So he does not subscribe to the Westminster standards as a minister (although I'm not sure what WSC's requirements of him are as a prof).
>>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.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, this makes a confession the arbiter of what is and is not a "true church," not Scripture. RB's take as their reference point on this Scripture.
>>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."
Taken on its face, this is a great argument for hyper-Calvinism. Moreover, I gather Dr. Clark would not have a problem if a Baptist declared he was not a member of a "true church." The point I'm making is that this claim is not at all different from the claims of your typical Landmark Baptist.
>>They ought to unite with a true church.
Okay, as a RB, I'll agree. However, from my perspective, to play Dr. Clark's game: True churches do not baptize infants. Ergo, Dr. Clark is not part of a true church. That's the Landmark argument. Do you see where this goes now? Despite his comments about the SBC, perhaps Dr. Clark should bone up on the new IMB baptism policies, which borrow from this same idea. According to the SBC's IMB, Dr. Clark is not fit to serve on the mission field because he is not part of a true church and unbaptized.
>>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.
>>>We do not wish to harden our children by the means of grace. We exclude them from both baptism and the Lord's Supper. Why, I wonder, would Dr. Clark use one covenant sign if they harden and not the other?
If the correspondence between the nation and the church in Hebrews is between the elect of Israel and the nation as a whole, this objection falls apart with respect to actual membership in the New Covenant. Moreover, Dr. Clark is arguing a straw man. We Baptists only argue that members of the local church are to be regenerate and thus baptized. However, we have a theology of the congregation, composed of regenerate but unbaptized/paedobaptized persons and the children of the regenerate members of the church. There are perks and responsibilities that belong to the church member that do not belong to the congregation's membership. This is pretty basic information. I'm sure if he can't engage it properly Dr. Renihan could assist him. However, I'm not so sure Dr. Renihan would appreciate being told he is not part of a "true church."
>>>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 would have Baptists invited to the assembly in 1646, at a time when their detractors lumped both General and Particular Baptists together in their thinking, at a time when the Particulars had written their own confession, the 1644 and its revision in 1646. That is, of course, based on the True Confession of the previous century which shows the hand of Willaim Ames in its theology. Was the True Confession and/or Ames not Reformed?
In fact, Dr. Clark has conveniently overlooked the attacks made against the Particulars by men like Daniel Featley who were part of the Westminster Assembly. One simply does not invite people to the table that one is in the midst of attacking. Again, I'm sure Dr. Renihan would happily remind Dr. Clark about these facts of history if Dr. Clark would ask.
I would never presume to disagree with David Gabois.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, were I to get into a fight with him, I might find myself on the business end of a predator drone!
However, Clark does not enjoy the same leverage!