6 comments

1. Eric,

   Check out the way the Heidelberg Catechism deals with baptism in questions 69ff. There’s no tension between the corporate and the individual. Christians are members both of the visible covenant community and individually responsible to appropriate the promises by grace alone, through faith alone.

   The FV, by wiping out the internal/external distinction, sets the one against the other or has the corporate swallowing up the individual.

2. Deja Vu. .

   Dr. Clark,

   Are there historical catechismal Q&A’s (if so, which question/answer numbers and which historical documents, Westminster larger/smaller, etc.) that flesh out the contours between scripturally described corporate and individual theology, piety, and practice (to use the RRC‘s subtitle)?

   I was told that I sounded like a Federal Visionist when I simply said that scripture should often be interpreted as speaking to one as a member of a visible church and not so much as one as just an individual. I thought that I was merely espousing the significance of church membership from an historically confessional perspective, but maybe not.

3. Thank you for this article! There is so much confusion among “reformed” folks on the implications of baptized church membership. I am encouraged to see prominent reformed theologians addressing these crucial issues from a biblical and confessional standpoint. May God be glorified in your proclamation of reformed ecclesiology!

4. If you have a moment to spare, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

   http://jrcagle.blogspot.com/2008/05/church-in-frames-frame-part-iii.html

   Thanks,
   Jeff Cagle

   • Hi Jeff,

     Hi Jeff,

     Interesting but I’m not a big fan of triperspectivalism. Here’s a brief, preliminary critique. In RRC I tried to offer an alternative approach.

5. Hey, that’s my article right after yours in the Table of Contents, Dr. Clark!

Comments are closed.