A Baptist Reads RRC and Benefits From It

recoveringAt Strict and Particular. One clarification: The reviewer asks whether I’m using the adjective “Reformed” in a denominational sense. The answer is quite decidedly “no.” It is used throughout the book to refer to a theology, piety, and practice that is found in several denominations and includes both the European Reformed and British or English-speaking Reformed and Presbyterian churches.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


74 comments

  1. Question: does “English-speaking Reformed” include LBCF 1689 Baptists? I know there are some corners of the Reformed community who have a problem with these credo-baptist brothers claiming to be “Reformed.”

  2. Dr. Clark,

    I too am interested to hear you answer Jacob’s question. I’m connected to a seminary that goes by the name “Reformed Baptist Seminary.” Our confessional standard is the 1689. I know Dr. Jim Renihan who teaches for The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, which is in some way connected with WSC. Do you consider those who adhere to the LBCF of 1689, the granddaughter of the WCF, “Reformed”? Or should we drop that appellative because we do not adhere to paedobaptism?

    Gratefully yours,
    Bob Gonzales

  3. Jacob & Bob

    I’m away from my computer. I’ve answered this
    question many times on the HB. Search the category cloud below or search (above) for “defining reformed.” Have you read RRC? I Address this in the book.

  4. Jacob and Bob as you will see Dr. Clark’s answer is no. Since one of the marks of a true church is the right administration of baptism. Since for him and the reformed confessions infant baptism is the right administration of the sacrament of baptism includes the conferring of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace on covenant children, credo-baptists are not part of a true church. If you look back at the flap some had when Dever said that paedo-baptists are not baptized a few months ago you will find Dr. Clark at once defending him and then disagreeing with Dever. 9Marks posted Dr. Clark’s response.

  5. By not part of a true church, Dr. Clark is not making any comments about salvation. I just wanted to make that clear.

  6. Dr. Clark,

    Though you didn’t answer the question directly, I’m assuming from your comments and from those offered by David that your answer is “no.” I have read nearly all of RRC and assumed that to be the case though I don’t recall you stating it explicitly. If you do state it explicitly, i.e., Baptists who adhere to the 1689 are not part of the true church, I’d be much obliged if you’d point out the page number(s).

    If what it means to be truly Reformed is to embrace your brand of paedobaptism and unchurch those who don’t, I concede I’m not “truly Reformed.” I thought that by adding the qualifier “baptist” and adopting a confession whose mother was the Savoy and grandmother the WCF, we had some basis for using the appellative “Reformed.” I now stand corrected.

    FWIW, I find your position radical and sectarian. But I can’t fault you for trying to be consistent since many of your forebears drowned other believers in rivers or lakes because they failed to conform to the “truly Reformed” understanding of baptism. I’m suspect you’re more civilized if not less narrow in your views.

    Bob Gonzales

    • I just saw this interview with Dr. Timothy George posted on Justin Taylor’s blog today. Dr. George is asked questions about Reformed Theology, and his responses contrast clearly with Professor Clark’s.

      Here are some excerpts:

      “I am, for example, a reformed Baptist, and I would agree with Calvin because I think Calvin agrees with the Scriptures on a lot of issues related to God’s grace and salvation and election. I don’t agree with Calvin, because I think Calvin doesn’t agree with Scripture, on a lot of other issues, for example, the baptizing of infants or the particular arrangement of church government he proposed. … I think a lot of people use it in a very narrow way to refer to a particular understanding of Calvinism or a particular understanding of reformed tradition, and I would rather have a more generous reading of reformed theology than that.

      So I think the discussion ought to go on in a context of collegial fellowship and discussion and honest study of the Scriptures, just as we would disagree with Presbyterians about infant baptism. Well, I think they’re dead wrong about that. I can’t find one ounce of Scriptural support for it, but I don’t consider all Presbyterians my enemies or enemies of the truth. I think they are in error. I think they are misled. I think they are, to some extent, blinded to the truth of baptism for believers by immersion only. But I want to talk with them and pray with them and work with them towards a better understanding of the truth, and I hope they will have the same kind of charitable attitude toward me, whom I’m sure they also see as a person who doesn’t see the truth completely.

      We paint our fences, we hold them up – “I’m this, not that!” – and, in the meantime, the foundations are being eroded. And what you sense and what I’m sensing, I think, is a renewed interest in the foundations. Reformed theology is a way of talking about that. It’s a way of getting in touch with the reality of the faith, with God, with the Scriptures, with Jesus Christ and salvation, with the mission of the church in the world. Reformed theology, at its best, is about those things. It’s not about, “I’m a Baptist, not a Presbyterian,” or, “I’m this kind of Baptist, not that kind of Baptist,” or, “I’m a conservative, not a moderate,” or, “I’m a moderate, not a conservative.” Those types of old-fashioned political distinctions, I think, no longer have the bite they used to. And what’s taking its place among many, not all – we shouldn’t exaggerate this – is this growing interest, and I think reformed theology is one of the things that people can latch on to.”

      • Brother,

        Thanks for the helpful quote from Timothy George. I agree in substance with his point. However, Dr. George’s ecumenical spirit may be larger than mine. He was a signer of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together II document which sought to highlight agreement on the “Gift of Salvation.” In that document, the signers, both Roman Catholics and Evangelicals affirm the following:

        The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel, the good news of God’s saving work for us in Christ. By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).

        On the surface, it may appear that the Roman Catholics are now affirming the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. But I suspect that the Roman Catholic understands something different by “the alone faith” than the evangelical. In RC theology, one is justified by an active faith (i.e., faith working through love) and not by a merely passive or receptive faith, which is what the Reformers meant by sola fide. I may not have stated as precisely as I should, and Dr. Clark or someone else here may want to chime in. But I’m a little suspicious of the ECT II accord and I question wisdom of those Evangelicals who signed it.

        In sum, I do want to have a “catholic” spirit in the right sense of that term. Hence, my desire for greater unity among the various factions within the Reformed community. However, as your user name indicates, truth unites but it also divides. Hence, and I’m sure you agree, we must beware of the wrong kind of ecumenicism.

        That qualifier aside, I again thank you for the useful citation from Dr. George.

        Sincerely yours,
        Bob Gonzales

  7. David,

    Thanks for stating more clearly what I already suspected. I’m well-aware of Mark Dever’s view of baptism, as well as Clark’s commendation of Dever’s “consistency.” I disagree with both, however.

    Thanks also for the assurance that Dr. Clark is not necessarily making a statement about the eternal state of baptists. If he thinks many of us are true Christians, then I’d assume he finds the wording of the WCF XXV a bit strong. There, at the end of paragraph 2, we’re told that outside the true visible church “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” Then again, perhaps he agrees with this doctrinal formula and remains somewhat agnostic about our eternal state or doubtful about the majority of us.

    Bob Gonzales

  8. Hi Bob,

    You wrote: “FWIW, I find your position radical and sectarian. But I can’t fault you for trying to be consistent since many of your forebears drowned other believers in rivers or lakes because they failed to conform to the “truly Reformed” understanding of baptism.”

    I find it interesting that someone who brings up the Anabaptists would declare another position radical and sectarian. Sure, some paedobaptists in the sixteenth-century performed heinous acts. But, I’ll see your drownings and raise you Anabaptists slaughtering people in Münster, while they ran around naked and practiced bigamy. The sixteenth-century was a tumultous time. Can we not just call it a wash and move on?

  9. danborvan,

    First, clever poker metaphor.

    Second, I don’t trace my Baptist heritage to the Anabaptists of Munster. Indeed, I’m not aware that any of my Baptist forebears (the English Particular Baptists) condoned murder, running around naked, or bigamy. In any case, I agree that such practices are radical or extreme. But that’s not what I was referring to above.

    Third, I’m glad you find some of the practices of 16th century paedobaptists as heinous crimes. I’m grateful that the Reformed paedobaptists kept reforming and eventually abandoned a sacral view of society. Bless God for the abolition of the act of uniformity.

    Fourth, though paedobaptists no longer endorse the corporeal punishment of baptists, some still apparently want to unchurch them. It is this practice I find to be extreme (that’s what I meant by radical) and sectarian (i.e., overly restrictive in the way one defines the true church). Of course, we’re all welcome to our opinions of what qualifies or disqualifies an religious society of believers from being a true church. But that’s why I’m asking questions. I’m trying to ascertain Dr. Clark’s precise position.

    Fifth, I’ve read through most of RRC and received the impression that Dr. Clark denys the appellative “Reformed” to Baptists. This was related to his adherence to and application of the second so-called mark of a true church. Interestingly, when I suggest to some of my RB friends who like Dr. Clark’s book that this is what he’s saying, they deny he says this in RRC. So I was trying to get some clarification. Does he explicitly deny Baptists the right to the appellative “Reformed”? Or is this simply an implication we’re to draw out from his book? Page numbers would be helpful.

    Sixth, the logical implication of Dr. Clark’s position seems to be that Baptist churches are not merely non-Reformed churches. Rather, they’re not true churches at all. Is this Dr. Clark’s position? He assured me above that he’s already addressed this question on this site and in RRC. Could someone direct me to the posts where his unchurching of Baptists is stated explicitly? What about the page numbers in RRC? Or am I left to draw inferences?

    Seventh, if Baptists are not part of the true church and if the WCF 25.2 is correct in asserting that outside the true visible church “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation,” then where does that leave most Baptists today? Does anyone see any tension between the statement in the WCF and the view that denies Baptist churches are true churches?

    Finally, you may be wondering why I’m asking these questions, and I don’t mind sharing. We include a link on our seminary website to the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, which is connected with Westminster Seminary California where Dr. Clark teaches. I have sometimes recommended IRBS/WSC to students who want to acquire an accredited degree from a Reformed seminary. I could not, however, recommend an institution that supports the kind of narrow and restrictive views that Dr. Clark apparently advocates.

    Thanks for your time and patience.
    Bob Gonzales

  10. Lest I sound overly critical above, let me affirm my appreciation for Dr. Clark’s affirmation of the free offer of the gospel and his (and the other WSC faculty members’) defense of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification (as well as the covenant of works). Moreover, though I found much to disagree with in RRC, I did appreciate his admission that it’s time for updated confession. Wish I could get some of my 1689 friends to see that.

    Bob G.

  11. Dear Dr. Gonzalez,

    Dr. Clark’s view is not as myopic as you make it sound. It’s the doctrine of the marks of the true church as taught by the 3FU (though some have argued for a different interpretation of BC 29). FWIW, my understanding of the doctrine of the church in the WCF is that it works on a pure/impure spectrum, so the WCF 25 passage would need to be interpretted in light of that.

    “I have sometimes recommended IRBS/WSC to students who want to acquire an accredited degree from a Reformed seminary. I could not, however, recommend an institution that supports the kind of narrow and restrictive views that Dr. Clark apparently advocates.”

    As one who had the luxury of going through WSC and IRBS, this seems pretty silly to me. WSC/IRBS is an outstanding relationship and educational experience. They treat Baptists very well there! And where Baptists depart from the Reformed tradition, Jim does a great job of making a persuasive argument, while maintaining a spirit of love and friendship with WSC faculty. He is to IRBS students a great example of churchmanship and scholarship, in my personal opinion.

    And, really, in light of my above point about the 3FU and the doctrine of the church, your statement amounts to saying that you cannot support any seminary that subscribes the three forms of unity. And wouldn’t that just further prove Dr. Clark’s point that Baptists should not call themselves Reformed (since we could not support a confessionally Reformed seminary)?

  12. Brandon,

    First, I’m not certain I agree with the Belgic Confession regarding the marks of a true church–at least not if “the right administration of the sacraments” is interpreted to preclude Baptists from being members of true churches. Obviously, our Baptist forefathers did not agree that they were non-churches, so I take it they wouldn’t agree with Clark’s narrow perspective. Indeed, they worked hard to try to convince the larger Reformed community that they were orthodox and deserved to be treated as true churches.

    Second, I’m not sure I understand your “spectrum” interpretation of the WCF of faith and its bearing on Dr. Clark’s view. Are you saying that you (and he) believe Baptist churches are more or less pure churches? That’s an entirely different position than asserting that they are not true churches at all. (Of course, I’d apply that same rule to paedobaptist churches since the WCF does.) I’d like some clarity from Dr. Clark.

    Third, I’m glad your experience at IRBS/WSC was positive. When you say, “Where Baptists depart from the Reformed tradition, Jim does a great job of making a persuasive argument,” what do you mean? What does he argue for? Does he argue that we Baptists do have a basis for employing the nomenclature “Reformed”? Or does he concede that Dr. Clark is correct and that we’re really not Reformed? Does he agree with Dr. Clark that we’re not true churches? Does he agree with the Belgic Confession about the marks of a true church and would he, therefore, conclude that paedobaptist communions are not true churches since they don’t rightly administer the sacraments?

    Fourth, why do you find my hesitancy to commend a seminary that tells my students they are not members of true churches silly? Do you consider that position of no consequence? What would the pastors of students I counsel think if I recommended a seminary where the man under their charge is going to be taught that they’re not a member of a true church? Do you consider that teaching of minor consequence?

    Fifth, my statement would amount to saying that I cannot support any seminary that subscribes to the three forms of unity only if those seminaries interpret and apply the 2nd mark of the true church in the same restrictive way Dr. Clark does. Can you say that every seminary and church holding to the 3FU adopts Clark’s interpretation and application of the 2nd mark of a true church? Or are their churches holding to the 3FU that would adopt a more generous interpretation and application of this particular doctrinal formula?

    Sixth, if Dr. Clark’s argument is correct, namely, that Baptists shouldn’t call themselves Reformed, then by all means we should remove that appellative from our name. In other words, The Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies should change its name immediately (for the sake of “truth-telling”). Moreover, if what Dr. Clark’s denies that Baptist churches are true churches and if he’s correct, then we must cease calling our assemblies true churches. And if we’re not true churches, then we’re false churches. And if “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the true visible church, then we in heap big trouble!

    BTW, I have no doubt Dr. Clark is a gentlemen. Others have confirmed this. I’m sure he’s gracious, and I can assure you that I have no ill will towards him. Just trying to understand his position and its practical ramifications.

    Your servant,
    Bob Gonzales

    • Dear Dr. Gonzalez,

      1. My comments about the 3FU weren’t intended to vindicate its view of the marks of the church, it was simply to say that Dr. Clark did not invent the view he asserts, its what Dutch Reformed have been saying for quite some time.

      2. I don’t have a WCF with me at the moment, but in its section on the doctrine of the church, I believe it affirms the reality of more and less pure churches. My point was that your concerns about WCF 25 and “ordinarily no salvation outside the church” should be interpretted in light of WCF’s doctrine of the church, rather than BC 29. I agree with you, it does seem to be a different interpretation of the idea of a true church. As far as where Dr. Clark stands on that, I do not know. He may know something about WCF’s doctrine of the church that I don’t (actually I’m sure he knows a lot of things about it that I don’t).

      3. Jim would be a much better person to speak with to learn about his pedagogy and views. But I can tell you that Dr. Renihan offers courses that are of particular concern to Baptists, and in these he gives scholarly exegetical, systematic, and historical arguments for Baptist theology (including ecclesiology). And, yes, he does spend an hour or two arguing that “Reformed Baptist” is a legitimate description of us.

      4. Obviously, the doctrine of the church is important, but neither I nor the other Baptists that I met at WSC were shaken to our foundations by the fact that we disagree with the Reformed tradition about the nature of the church. I would like to think that men going into the ministry would be capable of kindly and thoughtfully listening to opposing views without it being a soul-destroying experience.

      5. Since I am not in the Dutch Reformed tradition, I can’t comment on what their seminaries and churches teach on this. But, again, I re-iterate that Dr. Clark’s view is not his own invention and has been around for quite some time.

      6. Well, if Dr. Clark’s views were right then more importantly IRBS and ARBCA would need to endorse paedobaptism, immediately. Naturally, these are doctrines where we *disagree* with our Reformed brothers and sisters.

  13. Dear Brandon,

    1. I haven’t interpreted of your comments as an attempt to vindicate the 3FU. I’m aware that they’ve been around for a while. Indeed, I lived four years in Grand Rapids (a major center of Dutch Calvinism in America). But I never came across any Dutch Calvinists while I was there who questioned whether I attended a true church though some did question the appropriateness of combining “Reformed” with “Baptist.” Of course, it’s very possible many modern Dutch Calvinists aren’t taking their creeds seriously and, hence, Dr. Clark’s attempt to “recover” this part of the confession.

    2. The WCF’s statement about more or less pure churches (which statement the LBCF adopts) is clearly limited to true churches. Accordingly, a Mormon “church” would not be a “less pure” church. It’s not a church at all. Consequently, if Dr. Clark really denies that Baptist churches are true churches at all, then he has, it seems to me, effectively removed them from the purview of WCF 25.5. The WCF 25.4 does refer to the administration of the ordinances as a mark of a true visible church. It would be interesting to know whether the Presbyterians and Independents who authored the WCF intended to exclude Baptist congregations as true churches because they wrongly administered the ordinance. I don’t expect you to answer these questions, but I am interested in Dr. Clark’s perspective on how the 3FU and WCF are to be harmonized at this point.

    3. I’m glad to hear that Dr. Renihan defends the appellative “Reformed Baptist.” In a discussion I had with him elsewhere, he seemed to suggest that we should change our name to something like “Covenantal Baptist.” I thought, perhaps, that he’d been swayed by Dr. Clark’s arguments. But really, I’m not that insistent on retaining the term “Reformed” in our name. After all, it’s nowhere in the Bible. I am, however, quite convinced that Baptist churches are true churches (excepting, of course, those who’ve departed from the gospel). I’m sure Dr. Renihan agrees and teaches his students so.

    4. I’m glad that your experience at WSC was overall positive. I’m not concerned that WSC is promoting “soul-destroying” doctrines. Nor am I opposed to the idea of Baptists learning from Presbyterians. I am concerned, however, about the promotion of a sectarian viewpoint and spirit. I don’t think Jesus looks with pleasure on unwarranted divisions within the body of Christ. And I’m not necessarily referring to the phenomenon of denominations per se. I’m referring, rather, to the promotion of a view that refuses to recognize true churches as such. Of course, I suspect some Baptist sects have been guilty of this kind of sectarianism. So I’m not just picking on paedobaptists.

    5. See #1 above.

    6. If Clark is correct, then RB’s would have to repent of wrongly administrating the sacraments and of misconstruing some points of covenant theology. If Clark is wrong, then he’d be guilty not only of the same errors (from the opposite side, of course) but also of promoting unwarranted schism within the visible body of Christ. God isn’t happy about the “one who sows discord among brothers” (Prov. 6:19) or “those who cause divisions” (Rom. 16:17). Of course, I don’t believe Dr. Clark has any malicious intent, and I’m certain he’s simply trying to carry his convictions through consistently. Moreover, we all have to draw the line somewhere. Whether RBs are really “Reformed” is debatable. Whether we are part of the visible church universal is, in my opinion, a much more important question with far reaching ramifications.

    Brandon, thanks for your patient interaction. I had no intention of putting you in the position of answering for Dr. Clark. He can answer for himself if he chooses. And I assure you that I have no ill will towards Dr. Clark. He’s a gifted scholar and by all accounts a gracious brother in Christ. In my years as a RB, however, I’ve encountered what I perceive to be a sectarian spirit among some RB brethren and churches–a tendency to view ourselves as the faithful few and everyone else outside our “movement” as worldly and suspect. I’m concerned not to expose my students to the kind of mindset that would feed and encourage such sectarianism.

    God bless,
    Bob Gonzales

    • I am concerned, however, about the promotion of a sectarian viewpoint and spirit. I don’t think Jesus looks with pleasure on unwarranted divisions within the body of Christ…

      Dr. Gonzales,

      Concerns like yours have befuddled me for years. Maybe you can help. I wonder if you might answer a simple question: what would a credo-baptist think should happen if a (Reformed) Baptist pastor was administering baptism to the children of believers?

  14. Dr. Gonzalez,

    You are right, your questions were directed at Dr. Clark and I somewhat haphazardly took it upon myself to answer them. I apologize for that. More than anything, I chimed in because of my great fondness for WSC and IRBS and I wanted to bring clarity to some concerns you had about them. Certainly, sectarianism is a great sin, and I share your concerns about it. But in my experience at WSC, the marks of the church have not led to the sectarian phenomenon that you are (rightly) concerned about.

    Peace in our Lord,
    Brandon

  15. Dr. Gonzales:

    Apart from the question of whether Baptists are “Reformed”, Clark has stated his position on the true church/false church distinction:

    [I]”We would discipline someone if they left OURC and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect.

    I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. [/I}

    This quote can be found in the 4th to last comment on the Heidlebolog thread entitled “The CRC and Machen”.

    And no, this “a priori” exclusionary rule is not the majority position of 3FU churches, but it can be found in a small fringe.

  16. Brandon

    Thanks for your comments. You input is important to me, and the fact that your experience at WSC/IRBS was positive encourages me. As I wrote above, I’ve appreciated other subjects Dr. Clark and his colleagues have written on and recommend their works to others. I have been less enthusiastic about RRC though. In any case, thanks for your input.

    Blessings,
    Bob Gonzales

  17. Zrim writes,

    Dr. Gonzales, Concerns like yours have befuddled me for years. Maybe you can help. I wonder if you might answer a simple question: what would a credo-baptist think should happen if a (Reformed) Baptist pastor was administering baptism to the children of believers?

    Good question though an unlikely scenario. As a Reformed Baptist pastor I could not in good conscience baptize the infant child of believing members. If I did, I’d violate my vows to uphold the doctrinal position and ecclesiastical polity of our church. In that case, I’d be subject to church discipline of some sort.

    On the other hand, I do recognize paedobaptists as true believers and their churches as true churches provided that they adhere to and promote the true gospel. Accordingly, we allow visiting Presbyterians to join us at the Lord’s Table if (1) they’ve made a credible profession of faith and (2) they’re members in good standing of a true evangelical church. Moreover, I’m open to accept a person into membership who was baptized as an infant but who subsequently professed faith in Christ with the following provisos:

    Step #1: I’d ask him whether he were open to consider the Baptist position. If so, I’d discuss the matter with him and provide him with some audio sermons/lectures, pamphlets, and/or books, etc. If he still remained unconvinced or if he’d already studied the arguments in favor of believer baptism but was unpersuaded, I’d move to step two.

    Step #2: I’d try to help him find a suitable Presbyterian or Reformed church in the area where his soul could be adequately shepherded. If that was unsuccessful, and he returned with the conviction that our church was best for his spiritual well-being notwithstanding our disagreement over the proper administration of baptism, then I’d move to step three.

    Step #3: I’d try to ascertain whether his intention was pure. If his intention was to attempt to promote debate and dissension among the members over the issue of baptism, I wouldn’t allow such a person into our membership. If, however, I and the other elders believed he was a man of integrity who could be trusted, we would invite him to apply for membership. His membership, however, would have two limitations. First, he could never serve as an office bearer. Second, he could not vote on any issue related to amendments to the doctrinal position of the church. Otherwise, he’d enjoy all the privileges and be subject to all the responsibilities of membership in our local church.

    I hope this helps clarify at least some of your befuddlement.

    Sincerely yours,
    Bob Gonzales

    • Dr. Gonzales,

      Well, unless I am missing something, I really don’t see what the difference is between your credo-baptist posture and the one that RSC takes on paedobaptism. I wonder why it is that you suspect “sectarianism and unwarranted divisions” on his part when you’d be subject to discipline for being a bad Baptist, a thing you seemt o imply would be just fine. Why isn’t your hypothetical discpline an example of “being sectarian and unnecessarily divisive”? You seem to take your sacramentology seriously enough you even self-identify by it. Why can’t we take ours just as seriously?

      Also, my suspicion is that most credo’s import their own over-realization of things when they suggest that we paedo’s are making some sort of comment on the eternal status of souls. But that just isn’t in our genes, as it were. Ours is much more of a churchly concern: where we speak of the marks of the true church, credo’s seem invariably seem to hear something about overturning inward stones or pulling up weeds. We’re talking about what we understand to be in/correct sacramentalogy and how that applies to the visible church, not whether someone is heaven-bound or not, which is an invisible church concern, which we’re told not to pry into, etc. (I can’t speak for all of us, but my hunch is that I’ll see plenty of heretics and being stumped at the absence of others I would’ve sworn on.)

      • Zrim,

        I’m sorry you can’t see the difference. Let me try to help you.

        Baptist context (at least mine)
        1. A member may resign from our church and apply for membership at a evangelical paedobaptist church with no fear of discipline since we view such a church as a true church.
        2. A Baptist minister who’s changed his position on baptism may resign (in an orderly way) and seek membership in a church where he can practice his beliefs without fear of being disciplined by the church.
        3. Any member or minister who willfully violates or encourages others to violate the accepted doctrine and policy of the church is subject to discipline (of some form).

        The “Baptist church = no true church” position
        1. A member may not resign from his paedobaptist church and apply for membership at an evangelical baptist church since the latter is not considered a true church.
        2. A minister who’s changed his position on baptism may not resign (in an orderly way) and seek membership in a Baptist church where he can practice his beliefs without fear of being disciplined by the church.
        3. Any member or minister who willfully violates or encourages others to violate the accepted doctrine and policy of the church is subject to discipline (of some form).

        As you can see, only at point 3 do our views intersect. I suspect this is because I reject the BC 29’s 2nd mark as a sine qua non of a true church. That the administration of the sacraments is the responsibility of every true church I do not deny. That we seek to administer them rightly is our God-given responsibility. But true Christians and true churches (in my opinion) differ and have debated the question of recipients and mode for some time. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, the Church of Rome interprets the role of baptism quite differently than the Reformed churches. In that sense, they do not administer baptism rightly. But isn’t it true, and I may be wrong, that the Reformed churches have been willing to accept a baptism performed by a Roman Catholic church as valid? If so, do the Reformed churches view the Church of Rome as a false church on account of a wrong administration of the sacrament of baptism?

        As for your suspicions about credo-baptist genes, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you alluding to the WCF 25.2? If so, then I would beg to differ that the concern is merely one of “visible church” and not one of “whether one is heaven-bound or not.” What does this mean: “The visible church … consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion … out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (emphasis added)? Is the reference to “salvation” here referring to some question other than whether one is “heaven-bound”? Is it referring merely to, as you allege above, “sacramentalogy and how that applies to the visible church”?

        Thanks for your patience.

        Bob Gonzales

        • Dr. Gonzales,

          Baptist context (at least mine)
          1. A member may resign from our church and apply for membership at a evangelical paedobaptist church with no fear of discipline since we view such a church as a true church.
          2. A Baptist minister who’s changed his position on baptism may resign (in an orderly way) and seek membership in a church where he can practice his beliefs without fear of being disciplined by the church.
          3. Any member or minister who willfully violates or encourages others to violate the accepted doctrine and policy of the church is subject to discipline (of some form).

          So, I would assume that one mayn’t change is mind on the nature of justification (and go to Rome) without incurring discipline; and one may also not change his mind on what constitutes, say, a Christian marriage and align himself with a church that agrees with his deviancy (or at least doesn’t discipline it), without incurring discipline. But he may change his mind on the nature of the sacraments without any fear of discipline? This seems to presume an almost negligible view of the sacraments, as if anything goes. This is odd to me for credo-baptists to say, since they go by a name which seems to suggest a high view of a particular sacrament. I wonder if you can see the irony here.

          Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, the Church of Rome interprets the role of baptism quite differently than the Reformed churches. In that sense, they do not administer baptism rightly. But isn’t it true, and I may be wrong, that the Reformed churches have been willing to accept a baptism performed by a Roman Catholic church as valid? If so, do the Reformed churches view the Church of Rome as a false church on account of a wrong administration of the sacrament of baptism?

          The implication of certain baptisms being illegitimate seems to suggest that they would have to be repeated, which would effectively make Reformed functional Anabaptists. But my understanding is that Reformed churches accept any baptism into the name of the Triune God, which includes Roman baptisms, Episcopal christenings (like mine) or baptisms performed in credo-baptist churches, etc. But the language we use is that baptisms must be “administered” correctly, not “understood” correctly. I might suggest this is where rationalism is showing itself. I didn’t understand very well what was going on when my children were baptized in a Reformed church, but that wasn’t the point, which was to be obedient to the teachings (and practices) of the church in which I had taken vows.

          • Zrim writes:
            So, I would assume that one mayn’t change is mind on the nature of justification (and go to Rome) without incurring discipline; and one may also not change his mind on what constitutes, say, a Christian marriage and align himself with a church that agrees with his deviancy (or at least doesn’t discipline it), without incurring discipline. But he may change his mind on the nature of the sacraments without any fear of discipline? This seems to presume an almost negligible view of the sacraments, as if anything goes. This is odd to me for credo-baptists to say, since they go by a name which seems to suggest a high view of a particular sacrament. I wonder if you can see the irony here.

            Bob replies:
            Since changing one’s mind on “the nature (did you mean ‘administration’?) of the sacraments” is not an “error everting the foundation” of one’s profession of faith (see LBCF 26.2), I don’t believe it’s worthy of church discipline. To the degree that the other errors above do evert the foundation of one’s profession of faith, they are subject to church discipline. As far as affirming an “anything goes” position, I’m quite at a lost as to how you inferred that from anything I said above. If a man rejects the ordinance of baptism altogether or decides (autonomously) to substitute finger painting in its stead, that’s a different matter. I think paedobaptist doctrine is built on unwarranted inference. Nevertheless, I have respect for my paedobaptist brothers and for their churches, which I consider to be true churches. I’m not sure I get the irony.

            Zrim writes:
            The implication of certain baptisms being illegitimate seems to suggest that they would have to be repeated, which would effectively make Reformed functional Anabaptists. But my understanding is that Reformed churches accept any baptism into the name of the Triune God, which includes Roman baptisms, Episcopal christenings (like mine) or baptisms performed in credo-baptist churches, etc. But the language we use is that baptisms must be “administered” correctly, not “understood” correctly.

            Bob replies:
            So the BC 29 gives as the 2nd mark of a true church “the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted in Christ.” The Roman priest understands something quite different from Protestants when he administers the Eucharist. Do you consider that a “pure” administration of the sacrament? The Roman priest also administers infant baptism as an instrument of the child’s justification. But Protestants believe we are justified sola fide. Do you think Rome’s administration of baptism is “pure”? Are the nature of a sacrament and its administration that far apart? You didn’t seem to make a dichotomy between the ideas above.

            Actually, my point is not to quibble about Rome’s practice per se. As I see it, both paedobaptists and credobaptists agree that Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism. They also agree that baptism should be administered upon a credible profession of faith. They disagree, however, on the question of whether the children of believers have right to the ordinance apart from a profession of faith and on the question of mode. In my mind, the error involved is of less consequence than Rome’s erroneous view of baptism. And I have a hard time understanding why it should be treated with such gravity so as to unchurch what are otherwise sound churches that preach the gospel (whether its the Baptist unchurching the Presbyterian or the Presbyterian unchurching the Baptist). Could the Belgic Confession’s elevation of “the pure administration of the sacraments” be a left-over from Rome’s sacramentalistic tendencies?

            Thanks for your patience and interaction.

            Your servant,
            Bob Gonzales

          • Dr. Gonzales,

            Since changing one’s mind on “the nature (did you mean ‘administration’?) of the sacraments” is not an “error everting the foundation” of one’s profession of faith (see LBCF 26.2), I don’t believe it’s worthy of church discipline …I think paedobaptist doctrine is built on unwarranted inference. Nevertheless, I have respect for my paedobaptist brothers and for their churches, which I consider to be true churches. I’m not sure I get the irony.

            If “paedobaptism is built on unwarranted inference,” how does that square with sola scriptura or the RPW? One feature of “being Reformed” is the belief that only that which is warranted in scripture may be practiced, etc. I understand you are following your confessional standard with regard to what is or isn’t an error worthy of discipline, but why would an unwarranted practice, like baptizing babies, escape discipline? Straight below you even go so far as to suggest a subsuming Romanism.

            Actually, my point is not to quibble about Rome’s practice per se. As I see it, both paedobaptists and credo-baptists agree that Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism. They also agree that baptism should be administered upon a credible profession of faith. They disagree, however, on the question of whether the children of believers have right to the ordinance apart from a profession of faith and on the question of mode. In my mind, the error involved is of less consequence than Rome’s erroneous view of baptism. And I have a hard time understanding why it should be treated with such gravity so as to unchurch what are otherwise sound churches that preach the gospel (whether its the Baptist unchurching the Presbyterian or the Presbyterian unchurching the Baptist). Could the Belgic Confession’s elevation of “the pure administration of the sacraments” be a left-over from Rome’s sacramentalistic tendencies?

            Your befuddlement about the respective “unchurching” of one tradition over another is my befuddlement over why those who define themselves by a sacramentology also speak as if the question over who is properly baptized and who isn’t is virtually negligible or doesn’t rise to the level of discipline; and I still don’t understand why credo-baptists may be serious about their theology, piety and practice but paedobaptists are “sectarian” when they try to do this. Your inquiry as to whether paedobaptism is a leftover of Romanism sounds an awful lot like the Anabaptist claim that the Protestants “didn’t reform enough.” But it seems to me that, since the greater balance of church history has been paedobaptistic and the credo-baptism is a relative historical novelty, the burden is really on credo’s to explain why they depart from the greater tradition, not on paedo’s to explain why they didn’t go all the way to Muenster.

            But, to the extent that I intuit an anxiety on your part (which seems quite common amongst credos’s) that to “unchurch” is to condemn, it might help to clarify that this “sectarian view” is trying to make a point about the nature of the true church, not about the eternal status of members therein. In other words, there are wolves within and sheep without; there are true churches filled with hypocrites and false churches with true souls, but that doesn’t mean the individuals in false churches are false themselves. It means pious souls should be sensitive to pursue the true church and cleave to her.

  18. Mark,

    Thank you for providing a reference to Dr. Clark’s position. Thanks also for clarifying that his position is a minority position. I’ll look up his article on this blog. Also, can you direct me to any expositions of the BC 29 that would represent the majority view?

    Thanks,
    Bob Gonzales

    • I have a commentary in mind, and will pass that along as soon as I can locate it.

      In the meantime, here is my exposition.

      The question is about making a judgment about the truth/falsity of a visible congregation claiming to be part of the church of Christ.

      We should look at what Belgic Confession Article 29 says concerning the matter:

      ============ ========= ========= ========= =========

      “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 punishing 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.
      With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when, having received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
      As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.

      ============ ========= ========= ========= =========

      The crucial question is whether the “pure” administration of the sacrament means “perfect and without error” ? The Reformed would all agree that Baptists err in not administering the sacrament to infants. But does this error alone render them a false church, as Scott Clark asserts? Keep in mind that in so far as they administer the sacrament to unbaptized new believers, I believe the Reformed churches would say they administer the sacrament correctly. So what we observe is a mixture: when they do administer the sacrament, they perform the sacrament as instituted by Christ. But they err in not administering that sacrament to infants.

      Further help in judging whether their incomplete understanding of baptism renders them a false church can be found in the Westminster Confession Chapter 25:
      ============ ========= ========= ========= =========

      “V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10]and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11]Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.”

      ============ ========= ========= ========= =========

      Here is a recognition that even the “purest” true church will be plagued by human infirmities and error. The real question then is not whether it is “error-free” , but the *degree* to which those errors have so degraded that body to clearly evidence it as a “Synagogue of Satan”.

      The Westminster language comports harmoniously with the Belgic’s clear picture of the false church: an overall degenerate condition touching on *all* the marks of the church: non-gospel preaching, man-ordained “sacraments”, non- discipline, degraded into covetousness, idolatry, the persecution of believers, and a disdain of the Word of God.

      Thus, to suggest that Baptist churches are Synagogues of Satan due to their partial error on 1 mark of the church is itself an error.

      • Mark,

        Thanks for your help. If I’m reading your harmonization of the BC and WCF correctly, the question really centers on how seriously one interprets and applies the 2nd mark of a true church to the (perceived) erroneous practice of Baptist churches in excluding the children of believers from the sacrament. In the view of some Reformed brothers, Baptist churches that preach the true gospel do contain errors and impurities but may still be considered true churches. In the view of other Reformed brothers, Baptists churches that withhold baptism from non-professing infants commit such a grievous error that they cannot be true churches irregardless of whether they preach the true gospel (thereby meeting the qualification of Mark #1). Am I understanding you correctly? If so, am I right to assume that Dr. Clark falls into the latter category?

        Your servant,
        Bob Gonzales

        • Dr. Gonzales,

          You are correct on all counts.

          {Except for your use of the non-word “irregardless”:-)}

          • Thanks, brother. You’re correct. The pen slipped. “Irregardless” is non-standard usage, an unnecessary combining of ir- and -less. I’m still learning English 🙂

            Bob G.

  19. Dr. Clark,

    Mark Van Der Molen helpfully pointed me to your position on Baptist churches as sects and as no true churches (your comment under “How the CRC Looked to Machen in 1936”). I am considering writing a book review on RRC and am curious to know

    1. Whether you still hold that position?
    2. Whether you affirm that position explicitly or implicitly in RRC? If so, could you give me the page numbers?
    3. Whether you intended to argue in RRC that Baptists who affirm the LBCF of 1689 (1677) are not entitled to employ the appellative “Reformed.” If so, could you please give me the page numbers?

    Thank you for your time.

    Your servant,
    Bob Gonzales

    • Sounds like you want him to do the work of self-condemnation for your review. If you want to do a review of someone who is consistent in their Reformed position, look it up yourself.

      • Timothy,

        Why do you find it odd that someone wishing to review Dr. Clark’s book would want to insure that he correctly understands Dr. Clark’s position? I don’t want to misrepresent him.

        Bob Gonzales

        • I understand that concern. It seems though that you want him to do the work of providing ample excuse for you to condemn his view point. This to me seems very bizarre. It is like asking “please give me each page # so I may blow you out of the water!” For this reason it seems quite odd; especially in your interaction with those who agree with the Three Marks of A True Church seems quite critical.

          Also, I do want to point to the inherent presupposition in your analysis of ecclesiology in general, that one may separate the form/particulars of piety from the material principle of the Gospel and not have serious effect on either.

          • Timothy and others,

            I apologize if my questions give the impression that my driving motive is to “blow out of the water” Dr. Clark’s book or position. Perhaps I was unwise to make my disagreement with his position known at the beginning. I honestly do think its a bit extreme and sectarian (I noticed that many on the Puritan Board, including paedobaptists, thought so too. See Baptist Churches not true churches?). Of course, I admire Dr. Clark for following his conscience. But if he’s a minister of the gospel, he’s asking his congregants to follow his conscience too. That’s the sticking point.

            As far as asking for the page numbers, I wanted to be sure that I wasn’t drawing wrong inferences. Knowing the author’s intent is best. Also, despite my disagreement with Dr. Clark on this point, I have found certain aspects of his book helpful and enlightening. I even assigned portions of it to a Baptist student for a Symbolics course. So while I think Dr. Clark’s narrowness in his definition of what constitute as church “Reformed” and, even more importantly, what constitutes a church a true church is a defect, I’ve got no burning agenda to blow him or his book out of the water. And I suspect that Dr. Clark’s driving passion is not to spend his waking hours blowing Baptists out of the water, which is pretty hard to do since we’re immersed :-).

            I am too dense to figure out what you mean by my inherent presuppositions. Are you suggesting that I affirm one may disobey God’s commandments (whether they pertain to doctrine, practice, or polity) and still be pious? Please help me understand your point.

            Your servant,
            ‘Bob Gonzales

    • Dr. Gonzalez,

      Hi, me again. If you do decide to write a review of Dr. Clark’s book (is it too gratuitous of me to discourage you from doing this?), perhaps you should give further thought to what truly constitutes sectarianism. It’s not clear to me why the visible church should be the dividing line of this issue (and I know that many Reformed people would see it this way, as well). Many of those who would question the “true church-ness” of Baptist churches would still insist that these are filled with God’s elect. In light of that qualification, I would (even as a Baptist) vigorusly deny that BC 29 promotes sectarianism even if it does teach a more restrictive view of the visible church.

      Quite frankly, it seems to me (and if I’m understanding Zrim, he’s suggesting this too) a bit unfair to call 3FUers sectarian because they deny that ours are true churches, when we turn around and de-baptize (so the argument goes) their children and do our own deconstruction of their visible churches.

      Just a suggestion.

      • Brandon,

        I’m not certain I’ll write a review. Others, like Alan Strange, have done a pretty good job in my opinion of exposing some of the weaknesses of Clark’s book (see “Recovering the Reformed Confession: A Review Article”). More recently, Keith Throop has posted a defense, “Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist”, with which I’m in substantial agreement. So I may not trouble myself.

        The term “sectarian” is variously defined, some of the usages being more or less negative in their connotations. It can refer to one who “adheres or confines himself to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination.” That may be good or bad. On the other hand, the term can refer to one who is “narrow-minded, parochial, overly restrictive.”

        Does the BC 29 promote sectarianism? Well, I think it depends on how one interprets and applies it. According to Mark Van Der Molen (above), who belongs to the same denomination as Clark, the majority of those who adhere to the BC 29 do not interpret or apply as narrowly and tightly as Clark. In other words, I get the impression that not all who hold to the BC 29 would unchurch Baptists. Even many on the Puritan Board think Clark’s position is a little extreme (see “Baptist Churches not true churches?”).

        Moreover, I find it ironic that, on the one hand, Clark and those who agree with him want to give great importance to the sacraments. Yet, on the other hand, they seem to give marginal importance to membership in the visible church when the assure us that we need not worry about our salvation since there’s plenty of elect outside the visible church. But the WCF 25.2 says that there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the true visible church. So is membership in the visible church important or not?

        One more clarification. I don’t necessarily advocate “de-baptizing” the children of paedobaptists against their conscience. As I’ve already indicated to others in this discussion, we would allow a paedobaptist to join our church and would accept his pre-profession, childhood baptism if he remained convinced in his mind that it was appropriate. He would have to agree not to be divisive and would not have the privilege of holding office or voting on any amendments to the doctrinal position of the church.

        Thanks for your gracious spirit. Be assured, I respect Dr. Clark has a brother and I take the esteem you and others on this list seriously.

        Your servant,
        Bob Gonzales

      • Brandon writes: Hi, me again. If you do decide to write a review of Dr. Clark’s book (is it too gratuitous of me to discourage you from doing this?)

        Hi Brandon,
        Why discourage it Brandon? Dr. Clark critiques others all the time. What do you think the book is about?! It’s a two way street Brandon. You can’t have it one way and not expect a response. I think Dr. Gonzales has give quite a gracious response that deserves a reply from Dr. Clark.

        • Jade,

          I was out of the country when this discussion was going on and I didn’t have the ability to reply.

          I’ve answered Bob’s questions several times in this space.

          http://en.wordpress.com/tag/defining-reformed/

          I wrote an entire book essentially addressing his question which Bob, evidently, hasn’t read yet. I think that’s enough. Bob’s a smart fellow. He doesn’t need me to hold his hand.

        • Hi Jade,

          I am a nobody in this matter– why my particular comments are so interesting to you is unclear to me. My involvement in this discussion was limited to what struck me as a veiled, unjustifiable criticism of WSC and IRBS. I, personally, do not have any problem at all with lively debate and book reviews of RRC– provided the reader has done thorough research or is a trained expert in the field or faithfully engages the argument of the book. When, empirically, none of these “marks” of good reviews are being met, I discourage reviews from being written. My concerns about Dr. Gonzalez writing a review are concerns that he alone can alleviate by giving a careful reading to the book. Your main point seemed to imply that I somehow have a problem with book reviews. I do not. Please do not lecture me.

  20. I tried to reply to Zrim’s response above, but for some reason could not find the “reply” link under his last response to me. So I’ll post it here. This will probably be my final response to him.

    Zrim writes:
    If “paedobaptism is built on unwarranted inference,” how does that square with sola scriptura or the RPW? One feature of “being Reformed” is the belief that only that which is warranted in scripture may be practiced, etc.

    Bob replies:
    Of course. But do you know of any Reformed pastor or theologians dead or living who’s never been guilty of drawing an unwarranted inference from Scripture? Have Calvin, Turretin, Owen, Hodge, Warfield, etc., ever been guilty of drawing an inference that was not “good and necessary”? So do we unchurch someone every time they draw an unwarranted inference from Scripture which is, as you point out, a violation of sola Scriptura?

    Zrim writes:
    Your befuddlement about the respective “unchurching” of one tradition over another is my befuddlement over why those who define themselves by a sacramentology also speak as if the question over who is properly baptized and who isn’t is virtually negligible or doesn’t rise to the level of discipline; and I still don’t understand why credo-baptists may be serious about their theology, piety and practice but paedobaptists are “sectarian” when they try to do this.

    Bob replies:
    I’m not trying to knock you for taking the sacraments serious. But wouldn’t you admit that there’s a danger called sacramentalism? Do you think “the pure administration” of the sacrament (meaning in your mind the paedobaptist practice of including non-professing children) belongs on the same level of importance with the “pure doctrine of the gospel”? To assert, on the one hand, that we Baptists are not part of the true visible church because “the pure administration of the sacraments” (BC 29) is not found in our “churches,” and to assert, on the other hand, that “out of [the visible church] which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2) is to introduce quite a tension in my mind. One either has to allow a great deal of flexibility in the phrase “no ordinary possibility of salvation” or one has to permit more flexibility in the interpretation and application of “pure administration” of the ordinances. From reading Clark I suspect that he would have to concede there’s a lot more possibility of salvation outside his more narrow definition of the visible church than a straightforward reading of WCF 25.2 seems to allow.

    I don’t believe infant baptism is a proper administration of the sacrament. However, nor do I view that error as one that “everts the foundation” of one’s profession of faith (LBCF 26.2). Accordingly, I’d rather err on the side of considering gospel-preaching paedobaptist churches as true churches than on the side of unchurching them, which, I believe, contradicts Christ’s many calls for unity and his opposition to unnecessary divisiveness in the body. I realize not everyone on this list may agree with my more “catholic” approach to this tension.

    Zrim writes:
    But, to the extent that I intuit an anxiety on your part (which seems quite common amongst credos’s) that to “unchurch” is to condemn, it might help to clarify that this “sectarian view” is trying to make a point about the nature of the true church, not about the eternal status of members therein. In other words, there are wolves within and sheep without; there are true churches filled with hypocrites and false churches with true souls, but that doesn’t mean the individuals in false churches are false themselves. It means pious souls should be sensitive to pursue the true church and cleave to her.

    Bob replies:
    I appreciate you point and your zeal for the visible church. I realize the term “sectarian” has negative connotations, which you don’t believe fairly characterizes yours or Dr. Clark’s position. I respect you both as brothers in Christ and have no wish to impugn your motives. Moreover, I think some Baptists (and Anabaptists) have been guilty of the kind of sectarianism I find inconsistent with the tenor of Scripture. May the Lord grant us discernment to distinguish between what pertains to the esse and what pertains to the bene esse of the visible church.

    Zrim, thanks for your patience with me.

    Sincerely yours,
    Bob Gonzales

  21. Bob says:

    I admire Dr. Clark for following his conscience. But if he’s a minister of the gospel, he’s asking his congregants to follow his conscience too. That’s the sticking point.

    To which I reply:

    Dr. Clark, as an ordained minister of the URC, is asking his congregants to follow the Belgic Confession: one of the three confessional standards to which they, in the process of becoming members, solemnly vowed to follow.

    • Philip,

      I understand Dr. Clark is simply asking his congregants to follow the Belgic Confession. But according to one of the contributors above (Mark Van Der Molen), who belongs to the same denomination, Clark’s restrictive interpretation of BC 29 is a minority view. Writes Mark, “And no, this “a priori” exclusionary rule is not the majority position of 3FU churches, but it can be found in a small fringe.” Apparently, not all ministers who vow to uphold the 3FU believe it necessary to interpret and apply BC 29 in such a restrictive way that unchurches Baptists. I think that places two much weight on the 2nd mark of a true church and not enough on the 1st mark of a true church, which in my mind ought of have the greater priority. As a consequence, Dr. Clark has unchurched a huge portion of professing believers today, and in doing so he has placed a question mark over their eternal welfare since, according to the WCF 25.2, outside the visible church there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation.”

      Dr. Clark’s view also potentially places Baptist churches in somewhat of an awkward position. As one brother on the Puritan Board depicted the dilemma somewhat humorously:

      “If Dr. Clark’s church contacted the wandering member’s new “church” and informed them that “so-and-so” was under discipline, and the baptist “church” was actually pretty good and took discipline seriously, it would be faced with an interesting set of choices:
      1. Disband because OURC doesn’t think well of them
      2. Discipline someone for coming to their “church”
      3. Congratulate the wandering member on a fortunate escape
      4. Rebuke OURC for sectarianism

      It is my concern that Dr. Clark’s views are somewhat sectarian in nature. Of course, I freely admit that many Baptist communions have been guilty of the same kind of sectarianism–yea, worse. For some of even excluded other Baptist churches that happen not to be of the same stripe though such churches may yet preach “the pure doctrine of the gospel.”

      Isn’t there a way of giving the sacraments prominence and importance without resorting to such extreme measures? Is Dr. Clark so absolutely sure that Jesus has removed his candlestick from Baptist churches for their withholding baptism from non-professing infants (because their shared commitment to sola Scriptura leads them to believe a credible profession of faith is necessary) that he feels the need to declare an “Ichabod” upon their assemblies? It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me. But perhaps I’m just blinded by the modern democratic, egalatarian Zeitgeist.

      Yours in Christ,
      Bob Gonzales

      • Apparently, not all ministers who vow to uphold the 3FU believe it necessary to interpret and apply BC 29 in such a restrictive way that unchurches Baptists. I think that places two much weight on the 2nd mark of a true church and not enough on the 1st mark of a true church, which in my mind ought of have the greater priority.

        Again, I have to ask, then why do (credo) Baptists go by a name that seems to prioritize a sacramental theology? Isn’t that alone an indication that there is too much weight on the second mark?

        You may say that “unchurching” (credo) Baptists is more heinous than simply employing a name, but (credo) Baptists seem to be drawing a line with their sacramental theology which effectively “unchurches” paedo’s. Again, why may credo’s take their sacramental theology seriously but paedo’s mayn’t?

        • Again, I have to ask, then why do (credo) Baptists go by a name that seems to prioritize a sacramental theology? Isn’t that alone an indication that there is too much weight on the second mark?

          Brother, I confess I’m not crazy about the name “Baptist.” I think the appellation places too much emphasis on an element of our faith that is not as central as, say, the person of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, justification, saving faith, etc. Sometimes I wish I could simply call myself a “Christian” who attends the “Christian Church of [such and such a place].” But we’re stuck with such denominational labels as “Lutheran,” “Anglican,” “Methodist,” “Presbyterian,” and “Reformed,” all of which place the spotlight on some person, historical movement, or particular distinctive of our denomination.

          You may say that “unchurching” (credo) Baptists is more heinous than simply employing a name, but (credo) Baptists seem to be drawing a line with their sacramental theology which effectively “unchurches” paedo’s. Again, why may credo’s take their sacramental theology seriously but paedo’s mayn’t?

          You’re correct to assert that some credo-baptists have drawn bold lines with their sacramental theology–just as bold as Dr. Clark does. I don’t agree with this as you can ascertain from my responses above. In other words, I’m against what I perceive to be an undue restrictiveness in defining what constitutes a the true visible church whether that restrictiveness is promoted by Credo-baptists or Paedo-baptists.

          Your servant,
          Bob Gonzales

  22. Mr. Gonzalez

    Sorry if this questions is similar if not identical to others that have been asked of you, but do you accept the fact that one of us is unbiblical in the way we administer the sacraments?

    If the sacraments are important (which it would seem important since it is a major denominational distinctive), then anyone violating their proper administration would at the very least be sinning ignorantly. If this is so, shouldn’t there be some kind of discipline exercised on the person that violates his churches standards, thus creating obvious ecclesiastical problems.

    For me, this is a difficult issue to think through because obviously there are Baptist churches that preach the Gospel much clearer than a number of paedo-baptist communions. But at the same time, their refusal to accept the paedo’s baptism undermines Paul’s argument for unity in Ephesians 4.

    Perhaps Dr. Clark’s views may be considered “extreme” but I don’t know another satisfactory answer. I wish it was easier, but I don’t really know how else one can attack the issue without compromising one’s position.

    • Brandon,

      I think the position I’ve outline above (click here) enables me and my church to maintain our conviction regarding the true administration of baptism without unchurching those who disagree and yet who affirm the same gospel–indeed, who affirm the great solas of the Reformation.

      Your servant,
      Bob Gonzales

      • I’m glad you bring up the sola’s. Brandon seems to have captured my concerns well. In light of his suggestions, I wonder if the sort of diminishment your proposal does to sacramental theology is not too unlike saying there were really only four sola’s, which is not too unlike saying one is a four-point Calvinist.

        To the extent that things like Calvinistic soteriology and the sola’s of the Reformation are internally consistent and cannot be plucked cafeteria-style without doing violence to all the other points, reducing sacramental theology to almost negligible seems an over-reaction to a presumed sectarianism. I am sympathetic to wanting to avoid fractous divisiveness, etc. But in this case, I think your premise, Dr. Gonzales, is much more perceived than real.

        Moreover, division is not quite the four-letter word you may presume. Jesus said he came to bring it instead of peace, and Paul said we must have divisions to see who has the approval of God.

        • Zrim writes:
          I’m glad you bring up the sola’s. Brandon seems to have captured my concerns well. In light of his suggestions, I wonder if the sort of diminishment your proposal does to sacramental theology is not too unlike saying there were really only four sola’s, which is not too unlike saying one is a four-point Calvinist.

          Bob replies:
          Zrim, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Was infant baptism one of the “solas” of the Reformation? Does the denial of infant baptism completely undermine Scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, and God’s glory alone? I find it ironic that, on the one hand, Clark and those who agree with him want to give great importance to the sacraments. Yet, on the other hand, they seem to give marginal importance to membership in the visible church when they assure us that we need not worry about our salvation since there’s plenty of elect outside the visible church. But the WCF 25.2 says that there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the true visible church. So is membership in the visible church important or not?

          I’m inclined to take the pure doctrine of the gospel most seriously. I’m also inclined to take membership in the visible church seriously. These two convictions lead me to treat paedobaptism as an error (and therefore a sin). But I don’t treat it as serious an error than the rejection of the true gospel or a willful detachment from the visible church of Christ.

          Zrim writes:
          I am sympathetic to wanting to avoid fractous divisiveness, etc. But in this case, I think your premise, Dr. Gonzales, is much more perceived than real. Moreover, division is not quite the four-letter word you may presume. Jesus said he came to bring it instead of peace, and Paul said we must have divisions to see who has the approval of God.

          Bob replies:
          I agree that division is not always a four-letter word. But I suspect that the division that Jesus came to effect and the divisions of which Paul speaks are those that distinguish the elect from the non-elect, not believing paedobaptists from believing credobaptists. I do think that excluding true believers from the visible church of Christ without warrant is a pretty serious matter.

          In closing, don’t take my remarks as a personal attack. I respect you and Dr. Clark and others who hold his position as brothers in Christ who are trying to do what they believe the Bible constrains them to do. I take your criticism of my view of baptism and your exclusion of me from the visible body of Christ (viewing my Baptist assembly as a “sect”) as an attempt on your part to speak the truth in love. Please try to view my critique of your position as overly restrictive and in that sense “sectarian” as a feeble and no doubt flawed attempt to do the same.

          Thanks for the brotherly interaction.
          Bob Gonzales

          • “I wonder if the sort of diminishment your proposal does to sacramental theology is not too unlike saying there were really only four sola’s, which is not too unlike saying one is a four-point Calvinist.”

            I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Was infant baptism one of the “solas” of the Reformation? Does the denial of infant baptism completely undermine Scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, and God’s glory alone?

            My point is that your ironic project seems to be one that wants to reduce the import of sacramental theology (in order to reduce what you perceive to be sectarianism). But the sort of reduction you seem to suggest to the general outlook of Reformed Protestantism is a bit like getting rid of, say, the first head of Dordtian doctrine. But removing one piece of either makes each something very different. But doesn’t softening papal infallibility do violence to Roman Catholicism? In other words, these are all packages, all organic systems of internal consistency.

            I’m inclined to take the pure doctrine of the gospel most seriously. I’m also inclined to take membership in the visible church seriously. These two convictions lead me to treat paedobaptism as an error (and therefore a sin). But I don’t treat it as serious an error than the rejection of the true gospel or a willful detachment from the visible church of Christ.

            Agreed. And agreed. These two convictions lead me to treat credo-baptism as an error (and therefore a sin). You lose me on why sinful behavior has no bearing on the affirmation of the true gospel. If paedobaptism is a sin why does it escape consequence?

            I agree that division is not always a four-letter word. But I suspect that the division that Jesus came to effect and the divisions of which Paul speaks are those that distinguish the elect from the non-elect, not believing paedobaptists from believing credobaptists. I do think that excluding true believers from the visible church of Christ without warrant is a pretty serious matter.</i.

            I do, too. But I don’t think that is what is happening here. If I may be so bold, I think what may be happening is that you haven’t come to terms with your own sacramental theology. On the one hand, you call paedobaptism a sin, one the other, you don’t want that sin to count for much. This seems rather common amongst credo-baptists, and I still find it befuddling. How is it that a sin can be ignored as a disagreement amongst friends? Somehow, to your mind, if I say that I am justified only so far as I am sanctified (read: I anathematize the gospel), or if I marry my sister (read: violate moral law) I have caused a division worthy of discipline. But if I baptize my child I have sinned, but it should not be cause for division. I’m stumped.

            But I think this is where we are in the modern age. If it helps, I think this is much of our own doing as Reformed; we have tolerated our tradition to be borrowed by those not befitting it. We have agreed that predestinarianism is king and that other matters are open questions. We have been poor stewards of our own confession.

  23. Mr. Gonzales,

    Thanks for directing me to that, I had read it but not really internalized it. I think it is certainly a possible solution, but in the way you’d deal with the hypothetical situation, it doesn’t appear to be that big of a deal…

    But sense the Reformed tradition has always maintained the importance of the Sacraments in a true Church I don’t know that this sort of approach is consistent with the Confessions (even the LBCF) stance on the importance of the issue.

    Maybe I’m complicating the issue, and while I like your response in one sense, in another way I think it overlooks the importance that baptism plays in our Christian identity. If baptism is inappropriately being administered, this is more than just a small doctrinal disagreement because Paul places baptism as assurance of our union with the body of Christ.

    If you are correct, then how can you identify with the brothers and sisters in Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in light of Ephesians 4?

    • sense [sic] the Reformed tradition has always maintained the importance of the Sacraments in a true Church I don’t know that this sort of approach is consistent with the Confessions (even the LBCF) stance on the importance of the issue.

      If I’m not mistaken, the question of open, close or closed communion has been debated among Baptists for some time. I am one of those Baptists who favor admitting to the table anyone (1) who’s made a credible profession of faith and (2) who’s a member in good standing of an evangelical, Bible-believing church. I don’t believe this contradicts the LBCF. Once again, if I’m not mistaken, some of the early Particular Baptists even allowed paedobaptists to be members in their churches (at some level).

      Maybe I’m complicating the issue, and while I like your response in one sense, in another way I think it overlooks the importance that baptism plays in our Christian identity. If baptism is inappropriately being administered, this is more than just a small doctrinal disagreement because Paul places baptism as assurance of our union with the body of Christ. If you are correct, then how can you identify with the brothers and sisters in Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in light of Ephesians 4?

      Brandon, perhaps this does place us at an impasse of some sorts. It appears that you believe not-yet-believing infants are in “union with the body of Christ” but truly-believing members of Baptist churches are not in “union with the body of Christ.” In your mind, I’m cutting of non-professing infants from their part and lot in the visible body of Christ by withholding the sign of baptism. In my mind, you’re cutting off believing children and adults from the visible body of Christ because they belong to a church that while holding to the same form of Triune baptism (Eph. 4) as you do nevertheless reserve that sign for professing believers. So we seem to adhere to the same sectarian position, just from opposite sides.

      However, I think there’s a difference: I may (if I’m wrong) be depriving many children of a visible sign (of which many of them have no conscious awareness of its significance). Yet I still treat the paedobaptists churches which they attend as true churches. I believe their parents and pastors are in error. But I don’t believe the error serious enough to undermine the credibility of their own profession of faith nor disqualify their assembly from the status of true church. You, on the other hand, assuming you agree with Dr. Clark, not only believe Baptists are in error but also that the error is so grievous that it disqualifies them from membership in the true visible church universal. Since the WCF 25.2 warns that there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the visible church, then you are forced to (1) question the eternal state of myriads of non-paedobaptists who nevertheless affirm the true gospel or (2) take exception to the wording of the WCF and grant that there is indeed a very “likely possibility of salvation” outside the visible church. So it seems to me.

      I’m not trying to suggest that my approach is problem free. I do believe that the question of who qualifies to be a recipient of baptism is important enough to have confessional status. The fact that my church restricts the privileges of holding office as well as voting on any amendments related to doctrine does show at least some attempt to take the sacrament seriously. Moreover, if someone in our church became a paedobaptist and began sowing discord among the brethren over the issue, he would be subject to some form of discipline. On the other hand, if a brother in my church became a paedobaptist from his study of Scripture (perhaps along with other literature) but came to his elders with a humble disposition and assured them that he had no desire to sow discord, we would allow him (1) to retain his membership in our church but forfeit the privileges of holding a church office along with some voting privileges or (2) to transfer his membership to a sound Presbyterian or Reformed ministry. In that sense, we would treat a faulty understanding of the right administration of baptism as a less serious than a defective understanding of the gospel–one that undermined that credibility of a person’s profession of faith.

      Hope this helps.
      Bob Gonzales

      • Hi Dean Gonzales,

        I just want to say that your comments on this thread are a model of clarity and charity, and that it upholds the aphorism of “better to be divided by truth than united in error.”

        • Your welcome, brother. May the Lord help us all not only to ascertain the truths of Scripture accurately and hold to them but also to distinguish their varied levels of importance and priority in the mind of God and to make appropriate applications of said truths to our current ecclesiastical situation. Much wisdom is needed!

          Bob G.

  24. Mr. Gonzales,

    I think I do remember Dr. Clark writing on this blog that he does not consider a Baptist church to be a true church, but that another professor at his seminary, Dr. Godfrey, does. I hope this helps.

    I read through a large portion of what you wrote, and I have to agree with what “Truth Unites… and Divides” wrote.

  25. Zrim,

    I would have preferred to reply underneath your response above, but I’m guessing the blog only allows so many levels of subordinate threads. Below are your comments and my counterpoints:

    Zrim writes:
    My point is that your ironic project seems to be one that wants to reduce the import of sacramental theology (in order to reduce what you perceive to be sectarianism). But the sort of reduction you seem to suggest to the general outlook of Reformed Protestantism is a bit like getting rid of, say, the first head of Dordtian doctrine. But removing one piece of either makes each something very different. But doesn’t softening papal infallibility do violence to Roman Catholicism? In other words, these are all packages, all organic systems of internal consistency.

    Bob replies:
    Well, I agree (as a good Vantillian) that all truth is interrelated. But Jesus did speak of “weightier” and, by implication, “less weighty” matters of the law. God does place a higher priority on mercy than on mere ritual (Hos. 6:6). I’m not convinced, therefore, that an error in an area of doctrine or practice of “lesser weight” must of necessity push one down the slippery slope of denying the gospel. For instance, some of Jesus’ genuine disciples drew unwarranted inferences from statements he had made to Peter about John just prior to his ascension (see John 21:23). The fact that they had some of their eschatology messed up, however, doesn’t incline me to believe that they were on the brink of denying the gospel or that their particular error must of necessity overthrow the rest of biblical truth.

    Zrim writes:
    These two convictions lead me to treat credo-baptism as an error (and therefore a sin). You lose me on why sinful behavior has no bearing on the affirmation of the true gospel. If paedobaptism is a sin why does it escape consequence?… If I may be so bold, I think what may be happening is that you haven’t come to terms with your own sacramental theology. On the one hand, you call paedobaptism a sin, one the other, you don’t want that sin to count for much. This seems rather common amongst credo-baptists, and I still find it befuddling. How is it that a sin can be ignored as a disagreement amongst friends? Somehow, to your mind, if I say that I am justified only so far as I am sanctified (read: I anathematize the gospel), or if I marry my sister (read: violate moral law) I have caused a division worthy of discipline. But if I baptize my child I have sinned, but it should not be cause for division. I’m stumped.

    Bob replies:
    Zrim, you’ve raised a good question. Should we treat all sin as equally serious? Let me attempt to answer that question in two parts:

    (1) All sin is serious.

    According to Scripture, all sins—from the least to the greatest—are serious and worthy of damnation. Quoting Deuteronomy 27:26, Paul warns, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10). Thus, to break just one commandment of God’s law makes one liable to God’s curse. The apostle James confirms this when he writes, “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Because the law is a reflection of God’s holy nature, and because God’s nature is an inseparable unity, then the smallest violation of God’s law becomes an attack upon God himself. This great reality was underscored at man’s fall into sin. What was Adam’s “mortal” sin? His mortal sin was not idolatry, murder, or adultery. Adam’s sin was to eat the forbidden fruit. At one level, his sin might be comparable to breaking the speed limit or running a stop sign. It was a peccadillo. But at another level, Adam’s sin was nothing less than rebellion against His Creator. And because he disregarded the command of an infinitely holy and just God, Adam’s “peccadillo” placed himself and the human race under the justice and wrath of Almighty God. For this reason, Rome’s distinction between venial sins and mortal sins much be rejected. The Bible represents all sin as serious and worthy of damnation. In that sense, all sins are mortal.

    (2) Some sins are more serious than others.

    The fact that all sins are serious and worthy of damnation does not rule out degrees of sin. Jesus himself acknowledged degrees of sin when He said to Pilate, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). This truth is further supported by the passages which allude to degrees of punishment. For example, Jesus warns His contemporaries, “I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for you” (Matt. 11:24). Note the comparison. According to Jesus, His fellow countrymen who reject him are in for greater punishment than that suffered by the former inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus’ threat obviously implies that some sins are more serious in God’s sight than others. But this conclusion leads us to ask the question, Why does God treat some sin more seriously than other sin? The answer to that question depends upon at least two factors: (a) the degree of light the sinner possesses, and (b) the degree of intention involved in the sin. Let’s consider each of these in turn.

    (a) The degree of one’s guilt is relative to the degree of one’s knowledge of truth.

    In Luke 12:47-48, Jesus teaches this principle by way of an illustration:

    And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare him¬self or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

    This is why Jesus warns his countrymen that it will be far more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment than for them if they reject His gospel message (Matt. 10:16; 11:21-24). I believe this is also the point Jesus underscores when He says to Pilate in John 19:11, “the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” Commentators debate whether Jesus is alluding to Caiaphas the High Priest or to Judas Iscariot. But in either case, Jesus is referring to someone who had much more gospel light than Pilate. Certainly, Pilate was wrong for putting Christ to death. But the sin of Caiaphas and even more the sin of Judas were far worse because they knew far more gospel. Thus the degree of one’s guilt is relative to the degree of one’s knowledge of truth.

    (b) The degree of one’s guilt is relative to the degree of one’s intention involved in the sin.

    In other words, God views our sin not only in relation to head-knowledge but also in relation to heart-disposition. For example, in Numbers 15:27-30, God distinguishes between the person who sins “unintentionally” and the person who sins “presumptuously,” literally, who sins “with a high hand.” In the case of the former, the person is not acting with full knowledge and consent of the will. In the case of the latter, the person is acting in full knowledge and utter defiance of God’s command. The fact that atonement could not be made for this kind of sin underscores its serious nature. Once again God warns His people against the sin of defiance in Deuteronomy 28:19. There He describes the man who after hearing the warnings of Scripture “blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart.’” Such a man, God goes on to say, will not be forgiven (v. 20). In Jeremiah chapter 7, God expresses his extreme anger towards Israel because of their “stubborn hearts,” “turned backs,” and “stiff necks” (vv. 24, 26), which are all expressions of defiance. In fact, God is so angry with their sin that He tells Jeremiah to stop praying for them (v. 16). Once again this demonstrates the fact that God takes some sins more seriously than others. Louis Berkhof summarizes this point in his systematic theology:

    Sins committed on purpose, with full consciousness of the evil involved, and with deliberation, are greater and more culpable than sins resulting from ignorance, from an erroneous conception of things, or from weakness of character. Nevertheless the latter are also real sins and make one guilty in the sight of God (Systematic Theology, 252).

    Application to our present discussion

    Zrim, I suspect that you’d probably agree with most of what I’ve said above. Nevertheless, you’re probably still convinced that the sin of withholding the sacrament of baptism to the children of believers is a grievous sin on my part and significant enough to exclude me from the visible body of Christ. Conversely, you probably think I should take my sacramentalogy more seriously. If I were consistent with my Baptist principles, I’d denounce the practice of infant baptism as a doctrine born from the pits of hell and designed by the devil to lull many a “covenant child” into the spiritual sleep that leads to destruction. What’s my response?

    First, I do believe infant baptism can be a dangerous doctrine if accompanied by such teachings as ex opere operato, namely, the sacrament automatically effects the grace, presumptive regeneration, or some of the more extreme forms of “objectivism” that I see among some of the Federal Vision folk. But church history has shown that those paedobaptist families and churches are not in mortal danger who don’t presume their child automatically receives saving grace merely by virtue of the administration of the sacrament alone, who don’t presume that every child baptized is de facto regenerate, and who pray for the fruits of a credible profession of faith and good works. Of course, I have to add a qualifier. If a paedobaptist’s eyes were opened to the truth that infant baptism is an unwarranted practice (assuming I’m right), and yet he knowingly and defiantly pursues and practices with “high hand” what his conscience clearly tells him is wrong, then he’s in danger of hellfire. In sum, the seriousness of wrong sacramentalogy depends partly on the degree of one’s knowledge of the truth (which in turn depends on the degree of clarity in which a given truth is revealed, see 2 Peter 3:16; WCF 1.7) and partly on the degree of one’s volitional intention involved in the sin.

    Second, I think you’d agree that while all Reformed Christians generally agree on the Regulative Principle of Worship in principle, they do not all agree in practice. Some advocate exclusive psalmody. Others believe non-inspired hymns that are Scriptural in content are biblically warranted. Some believe the RPW precludes the use of any instruments altogether. Others believe that instruments are one facet of Old Covenant worship that did not, like animal sacrifices, a special priesthood, and a physical temple, pass away. Interestingly, some Particular Baptists believed congregational singing should not be a part of corporate worship and denounced the practice of such as a hangover from Rome.

    Now, when we talk about the RPW, we’re talking about the 2nd commandment of the Decalogue. Accordingly, in the minds of some Reformed folk, the introduction of a single musical instrument into corporate worship is equivalent to idolatry. Can a church that condones and practices idolatry be a true church?

    Here is an area where I find Reformed folk of various communions or denominations accusing one another of sin but not treating the sin with the same severity in every case. For instance, I know of one pastor who wrote a treatise in which he argued that the RPW and 2nd commandment forbids the use of any musical instruments in worship. But there was something in him that caused him to hesitate in painting every perceived violator with the same broad brush. Consequently, he thought churches using no instruments might have communion with churches that only use one instrument. However, there could not be communion, in his mind, with churches that employed more than one instrument.

    In RRC, Dr. Clark offers an argument for exclusive psalmody and the non-use of musical instruments in corporate worship as a faithful application of the RPW (if I read him correctly). Does such a position require him to view the use of non-inspired hymns and instruments in worship as sin and as, therefore, a violation of the 2nd commandment? I would think so (perhaps I’m wrong). But I haven’t gotten the impression that Dr. Clark would of necessity and in every case view Presbyterian or Reformed churches that may use the Trinity Hymnal or employ instrumental accompaniment as “temples of idolatry” or “synagogues of Satan.” It would seem (and again, I’m open to correction) that Dr. Clark may acknowledge that not all possess the same amount of light, which may be partly due to the relative clarity of a given position (WCF 1.7), and that not all are consciously sinning with “high hand,” that is, some of his Presbyterian and Reformed brothers have “blind spots.” So on the one hand, he teaches and writes in order to persuade them that they might know the way more perfectly. On the other hand, he’s patient with them and doesn’t unchurch them even though he technically believes they’re not doing full justice to the RPW and the 2nd commandment.

    Third, Dr. Clark in RRC warns against “the quest for illegitimate religious certainty” (QIRC). That is, the pursuit of a kind of certainty about certain doctrinal or practical truths beyond that which special revelation warrants. One prime example of this illegitimate quest he offers is the six-day creation view. Clark doesn’t believe the biblical data is clear or conclusive enough to warrant dogmatism. But in point of fact, I think many commentators (even some liberals) and theologians have made a good case that the exegetical evidence alone makes the six-day creation view the most plausible reading. Of course, the reading that seems on the surface most plausible may not be the right one. Nevertheless, a six-day creation view is not built on mere inference. The data in Genesis 1 as well as a straightforward reading of Exodus 20:11 seem to support the six-day view.

    Of course, my purpose here is not to debate the various views of the timeframe of creation. My point, rather, is to highlight the fact that Dr. Clark himself acknowledges the Bible is just not that clear on some issues as it is on others. Let’s apply that insight to baptism. That Christ commands the church to make disciples and to administer Triune baptism is undisputed among paedo-baptists and credo-baptists. That the Bible requires the baptism of those who profess faith in Christ both parties agree. No debate.

    Does the NT, though, explicitly teach by clear precept or obvious precedent the baptism of infants. Here, good and godly men have debated. And the case for paedobaptism rests largely if not entirely on inference. This fact alone does not render the argument for infant baptism invalid. If the inference is “good and necessary,” then the doctrine is established. But herein resides the crux interpretum. Is the inference “good and necessary” (the Paedo-Baptist view)? Or is the inference unwarranted (the Credo-Baptist view)?

    In my estimation, the weight of evidence falls on the side of the Baptists. I just don’t see the warrant for many of the inferences drawn from my paedobaptist brothers. Nevertheless, I have too great respect for them to call them blathering idiots or hard-hearted rebels. While I stand firm on the importance of Triune baptism and its adminstration to professing believers, I am willing to acknowledge that the question of whether the sacrament should be administered to the infants of believers is less clear. Some of my Baptist brothers may not agree with me. And certainly some of my Paedo-Baptist brothers will not agree. For some in both camps, the issue is as clear as crystal. For myself, I’m willing to admit that some doctrines are not as clear as others. Perhaps the question of whether infants of believers should be baptized is one of those “less clear” doctrines. If I’m correct, then are not you and Dr. Clark on an illegitimate quest for religious certainty with respect to a doctrine concerning which the Bible does not provide you with clear, incontestable evidence?

    In closing, Zrim, I acknowledge that you and Dr. Clark may sincerely believe that the doctrine of infant baptism is incontestably clear. Very well. At the very least, though, I hope I’ve helped you to see that my approach to this debate is not conditioned by unprincipled pragmatism or a postmodern adoration of absolute uncertainty. Dr. Clark himself argues that we must refrain from any attempt “to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable.” Special revelation is sufficient and clear enough for matters essential for salvation (WCF 1.6, 7). Nevertheless, special revelation this side of glory is partial and fragmentary in nature (1 Cor. 13:8-12). For this reason, a spirit of charity must govern our intermural disputes (1 Cor. 13:1-7, 13). It is for this reason, I still call my Paedo-Baptist friend “brother” and accord his church that preaches the “pure doctrine of the gospel” the status of “true church.” I wish my Paedo-Baptist brother would show the same charitable spirit towards me. I wish he would refrain from excommunicating me from the true visible church. I wish this because I share with him the conviction that my soul is not safe outside the visible church (WCF 25.2).

    Zrim and others who bothered to read this lengthy reply, thank you for your patience with me. I realize that I’ve taken great liberties in posting lengthy caveats to Dr. Clark’s position on Dr. Clark’s own blog. He’s been gracious to allow me to do so. My time for discussion is limited, and I should probably attempt to bring my part in this conversation to a close. In doing so, I want to reiterate my respect for Dr. Clark as a Christian, a scholar, and, from all reports I’ve heard, a gentleman. I am very grateful for the work he and his colleagues have done in defending the covenant of works, the law-gospel distinction, the free offer of the gospel, and the importance of a Christianity that is vitally connected with the visible church. Though I’ve taken issue with his view that effectively places Baptist believers like myself outside the visible church, I hope I’ve done so respectfully and with goodwill.

    Sincerely yours,
    Bob Gonzales, Dean
    Reformed Baptist Seminary

    • Bob Gonzales:

      In RRC, Dr. Clark offers an argument for exclusive psalmody and the non-use of musical instruments in corporate worship as a faithful application of the RPW (if I read him correctly).

      You do not read him correctly regarding exclusive psalmody. See Chapter 7, specifically pp. 270 – 280.

      I do hope if you decide to review the book that you read the whole thing—and read it more closely than you’ve demonstrated.

      • Rich,

        I was imprecise and stand corrected. Dr. Clark does appear to argue against the use of “non-inspired” song in worship. “The church may not require of a Christian that he should sing uninspired songs as this constitutes a breach of the RPW …. Exclusive psalmodists should be willing to include or at least tolerate the singing of inspired canonical songs since every canonical text is the inspired Word of God” (RRC, 270). Thus, his position is still more narrow than the predominantly held view that the church may sing hymns or songs of praise whose lyrical content is non-inspired but accurate rendering of biblical teaching and thus my argument above remains intact. But you are correct that Clark’s view is more nuanced than the exclusive psalmody position. Thanks for that correction. And if I do decide to review Clark’s book, I will definitely read the whole book and attempt to do so with greater care so as not to make the mistake I did above.

        Humbly yours,
        Bob Gonzales

    • Bob,

      Wow. In blogdom metrics, you just wrote a monograph. Thanks for the good faith effort.

      Unfortnately, I think what you may be up against with me is an agreement with the spirit of our own confessional standards that the three marks of the true church are all equally a cause for division. To do violence against the gospel, the administration of the sacraments or holy living is more than a polite disagreement between professing believers. I agree that yours is a very principled disagreement over the second mark. However, just as very intelligent people can get something quite wrong (and, contrariwise, dimmer wits can get something quite right), principled theological dispute, at the end of the day, can still be quite erroneous in its conclusion. It’s clear to me that you’d agree. Reptitive as it will be, what remains unclear to me is why paedobaptists are deemed sectarian and divisive for playing by the rules we’d both agree on.

      • Zrim,

        Thanks for your response. I apologize for the length of my reply above.

        I hope we can agree that each of us is endeavoring to base our approach to this dispute on biblical principle. That is, neither of us is being driven by unbrotherly malice or sentimental pragmatism. But we still disagree as to whether the practice of baptizing infants enjoys such clear and irrefutable support from Scripture that it should be treated as one of the sine qua nons of a genuine Christian church.

        Careful exegesis of Scripture coupled with available historical evidence (see Baptism in the Early Church, written by Hendrick F. Stander and Johannes P. Louw, two paedobaptist scholars) constrain me to conclude that infant baptism is based on unwarranted inferences and cannot be traced historically to the apostolic age. There is no clear and explicit command in the NT that the church should baptize the infants of believing church members. Nor is there any incontestable example of such a practice. On the other hand, I concede that there’s no clear prohibition in the NT against the practice of infant baptism. So we’re left to inference. and since arguments based on inferences can be more difficult to validate or invalidate than arguments based on clear propositions, commands, or examples, I’m constrained by my commitment to sola Scriptura and the analogy of faith, as well as my commitment to the qualifications to the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture summarized in the WCF and LBCF 1.6, 7, to adopt a less strict and narrow perspective than yours and Dr. Clark’s.

        So, as Paul and Barnabas had to do (Acts 15), we shall have to part company on this issue. You, being true to your convictions, will have to treat me as outside the visible church–a place where, according to the WCF 25.2, not many elect would seem to dwell. I, on the other hand, must follow my convictions and not only acknowledge you as a brother in Christ but also accord your church the status of “true church,” even though you advocate the dubious (in my mind) practice of infant baptism and also unwarranted (in my mind) schism in the visible body of Christ.

        May the Lord deal mercifully with us both at the Last Day!

        In the love of Christ,
        Bob Gonzales

        • BTW Dr. Gonzales,
          I totally agree with your assessment on inferences. It’s the same hermeneutic evolutionists use when there’s no evidence of the “missing link”!

          Jade

  26. Mr. Gonzalez,

    I realize that I am a late-comer to this discussion, and I don’t have the time to work my way through all of the comments, so forgive me if this has already been addressed at some point. But I do have a question:

    Do you consider the existence of Baptism an essential mark of a true church?

    If No, then how is your position not radical when considered in light of the larger Christian tradition on the marks of the Church?

    If Yes, then how is your position not sectarian when you effectively unchurch the majority of Christian churches through history?

    It seems to me that the only way you can justifiably hurl accusations of radicalism and sectarianism at someone like Dr. Clark without the same charge(s) applying to your own position is to first assume the propriety of your own view. In other words, to beg the entire question.

    • Jonathan,

      Please read through my several posts above. If you genuinely want to understand my position, then you’ll have to invest some time. If after reading through my comments, you don’t think I adequately address your questions, let me know and if my present responsibilities permit, I’ll try to interact with you more directly. I just want to avoid re-writing some of the same stuff over again if I can help it.

      Your servant,
      Bob Gonzales

  27. All:
    I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

    Dr. Clark:
    I would like to read your response to Bob’s very clear and articulate questions.

    Bob:
    I have been impressed by your very well thought out ideas. Your logic and train of thought is clear and very well polished. Unfortunately, I have yet to read a response that is as clear as your questions.

    Jonathan B:
    If I were you, I would make time to work your way through all the comments. If you truly seek the answers to your questions, you won’t mind taking the time to read all the responses. A little eye strain and “firing” of the neurons never hurt anyone.

    -Wesley Son of Cornelius

  28. Jade,

    My response appears in the August edition of Ordained Servant. I must say that Alan’s review was quite disappointing. Some of the comments he made to me by email, e.g. pointing out that Thomson’s view of the 1GA developed (as it did among some of the proponents of the revival) that I could have observed. Unfortunately, no such helpful criticisms found their way into the review.

Comments are closed.