Note: I have altered the claims of this entry in keeping with a couple of posts (I made him give me two witnesses before backing down) in the comments section. I still think the “fatwah” has a sort of unique quality that can’t be appreciated without reading it, so here it remains:
And last thing is, it’s time to start disciplining. And here I’m talking to ministers who are members of Presbytery, and delegates to Classis. Men, it’s time to get some spine. It is time, and past time, to stand up and act. I am up to here with excuses. It is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we have been entrusted as shepherds with the souls of sheep. You think you’re getting away with something – “oh, I’m so busy.” Don’t tell me about busy, tell Jesus. He shed His blood for these people, and there are wolves in the pen. In my pen, there are wolves. And there are wolves in your pen. It is time to lay down your lives and do what needs to be done. And I charge you as a fellow minister, in the name of Christ, you must do your duty, or you will answer for it. If the gospel doesn’t move you to this, then you need to look at your heart. Let’s pray.
Hi,
A couple of corrections are in order.
It seems to be the consensus in the URCNA (the federation in which I am a minister) that our church order doesn’t allow one to file charges against erring persons in other classes. Indeed, It’s not clear that we have even agreed as a federation (URCNA) how we’re going to discipline one another. One way is for the federation to exclude a congregation. In the case of John Barach, he left the classis before they were able to exclude his congregation from the federation.
As a matter of fact, for several years I have been calling publicly for disciplinary action in the URCNA against the proponents of what is now called the “federal vision.” I have also worked with two consistories in my own classis to bring overtures to address these issues ecclesiastically. One was a response to a theologically confused and errant committee report (touching issues related to the FV) and the other included a series of overtures to address the problem directly.
Though they agreed theologically, classis could not agree on the correct procedure so the overtures died on the floor. You are quite right to suggest that this is not a matter to be addressed ultimately in a conference. It is properly an ecclesiastical matter. Conferences are, however, quite useful in alerting God’s people to the errors that are being propounded in their midst and to enable them to act ecclesiastically. Thus, while I do not relish ecclesiastical (or academic) controversy, I am and remain quite willing to proceed against those who espouse the errors of the FV according to our church order.
As to your earlier post quoting Mike Horton, your quotations do not place those passages is their general context, i.e., the “internal/external” distinction which Mike assumes and the FV denies. Any citation of Mike, who has written extensively AGAINST the FV in favor of its key tenet is, of course, perverse. It has the effect of making him say the exact opposite of what he does not say! That’s quite a trick really.
As I replied to the Barlow blog:
My critics here seem to have missed the fundamental point of the lecture, the biblical, confessional, and traditional distinction between those who have an “internal” and those who have an “external” relation to the covenant of grace.
God does, of course, accomplish things through means of grace. Anyone who charges that I deny that fact reveals his ignorance of my published writings! See e.g., http://www.wscal.edu/clark/evangelicalfall.php
There are other examples of similar work on my site.
The question is not whether we ought to be high Calvinists or have a high view of the sacraments, but what does it mean to be a high Calvinist? Do we confess that God unites every baptized person “head for head” to Christ in the same way? The answer is most decidedly “No.” Why not? The answer is that there is, as Witsius said, “a double mode of communion in the covenant of grace.”
The advocates of the FV must get to grips with this distinction and the ministers and elders of our churches must get to grips with those who deny the distinction and distort our doctrine of the sacraments.
Blessings,
rsc
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
rsclark@wscal.edu
http://www.wscal.edu/clark
Is it possible to have an internal relation to the covenant of grace of sin or faithlessness?
In Calvin’s children’s catechism of 1538-1539, Calvin writes the following questions and answers:
Q: “My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
A: Yes, my father.
Q: How is this known to you?
A: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
See: Instruction in Christian Doctrine for Young Children.
Dr. Clark,
Since I have heard otherwise relating to URCNA jurisdictional procedure, and since you use the term “seem,” I am inclined to leave things as they are in keeping with your own sickness of hearing excuses.
Dr. Horton’s original essays are, sadly, no longer available for reasons that I don’t know but would love to learn about. In the meantime, since Reformed seminary students are my primary audience, they can go check for themselves and judge your claims.
Dr. Horton’s position on FV is no secret and it is just as baseless as your own, though he’s managed to not breathe out anathemas, to his credit. I have discussed it quite often; there is no trick.
I am a Presbyterian and am nowhere bound to describe the distinction between elect and non-elect covenant members as “internal” or “external.” Rather, I would speak of those who are the recipients of “common operations of the Spirit,” and those who have been “effectually called.” There are any number of ways that this distinction can be affirmed. Paul’s distinction between an outward Jew and an inward Jew as a way or distinguishing between those who were unbelieving hypocrites and those who were sincere and turned to Christ is certainly legitimat, but there is no indication that Paul denies that the outward Jew was not a member of the covenant. Both had the Fathers, one following in their example and embracing the Christ they longed for, the other being accused by them for rejecting their example.
Mark,
I’ve been told by those who wrote the CO that it is their understanding that cross classical procedure is virtually impossible. To my knowledge there is no instance thus far of it having been done.
Here are the relevant articles from our CO:
Article 61
When a minister, elder or deacon has committed a public or gross sin, or refuses to heed the admonitions of the Consistory, he shall be suspended from his office by his own Consistory with the concurring advice of the Consistories of two neighboring churches. Should he harden himself in his sin, or when the sin committed is of such a nature that he cannot continue in office, he shall be deposed by his Consistory with the concurring advice of classis.
Article 62
Included among the gross sins, but not to the exclusion of all others, which are worthy of suspension or deposition from office, are these: false doctrine or heresy, public schism, public blasphemy, simony, faithless desertion of office or intrusion upon that of another, perjury, adultery, fornication, theft, acts of violence, habitual drunkenness, brawling, filthy lucre, in short, all sins and gross offenses which render the perpetrators infamous before the world and which in any other member of the church would occasion excommunication.
The operative language seems to be “neighboring churches.” This seems to have been intended to prevent the sorts of abuses that occurred under the CRC.
I am happy to be corrected on the URC Church Order, however. If it is truly possible for me to complain to a consistory in another classis about the teaching of their minister, I shall do so immediately.
Having pursued this matter ecclesiastically now for six years, it does not appear to be possible.
Awaiting further instruction,
rsc
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
rsclark@wscal.edu
http://www.wscal.edu/clark
I have seen enough posts by this man over the years to make me shake my head in wonder at the following…
“Thus, while I do not relish ecclesiastical (or academic) controversy,”…
Hard to believe, indeed.
Sometimes I wonder why Jesus warns us about wolves if sheep are invulnerable.
In response to PDuggie, the reason why God would warn us about the wolves is that that warning is one of the very means by which He preserves us.
Scott writes: “In the case of John Barach, he left the classis before they were able to exclude his congregation from the federation.”
There are several mistakes here.
First, in Reformed (as opposed to Presbyterian) church polity, ministers are not members of the classis; they are members of the local church. So when I accepted a call from Reformation Covenant Church, I did not leave the classis; I left Covenant Reformed Church.
Second, saying that I left “before they were able to exclude his congregation from the federation” seems to suggest that the classis planned to exclude the congregation from the federation or even that it was in the process of doing so. Neither is true.
In the URCNA, a classis is a meeting. As soon as the meeting ends, the classis no longer exists (except as a geographical designation).
I was seated as a delegate at Classis Western Canada Spring 2006 (Thunder Bay) and that that classis did not say anything about excluding (or planning to exclude) Covenant Reformed Church from the federation.
And given that Classis Western Canada doesn’t exist until its next meeting, it clearly isn’t planning right now to exclude Covenant Reformed from the federation.
Third, according to the URCNA’s Church Order, classes do not have the authority to exclude a congregation from the federation anyway. Only the synod has the authority to declare that a congregation is no longer eligible to remain in the federation, and even then it is the congregation that withdraws, not the synod that expels.
Fourth, Scott’s comments seem to imply that this exclusion from the federation would have something to do with the views of mine which he is addressing in his lecture, namely, those views I expressed at the Auburn Avenue conferences and in the Knox colloquium.
But no one in the federation (least of all Scott himself) has ever brought charges against me related to those lectures or papers … or related to anything else either, for that matter.
Now it’s true that I do hold to paedocommunion and that I believe paedocommunion is within the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity, which puts me at odds with the decisions of Classis Western Canada Spring 2003 and Synod 2004.
If I and my fellow elders had stayed in office in Grande Prairie, we would have had to follow the procedure of the Church Order, as we had already started to do by indicating to Classis Western Canada 2005 that we disagreed with these decisions and weren’t going to bind ourselves to them. That Classis forwarded our communications to the URCNA’s Stated Clerk, who would have included them on the agenda for Synod 2007. And that Synod might have decided, then, that our congregation wasn’t eligible for membership in the federation (but not because of anything I said in connection with the Auburn Avenue lectures!).
Instead, however, I accepted a call to a church in another federation and my fellow officebearers decided that, rather than follow a path that might lead to the whole congregation leaving the URCNA, they would rather step down from office, and they are in the process of doing so.
To summarize: No charges relating to the so-called “Federal Vision” have ever been levelled against me, nor did I leave the classis, nor was the classis (or even the synod) in the process of excluding my congregation from the URCNA because of my views. Scott’s comments are in error.
What does “double mode” mean. In baptism, we refer to different modes to distinguish the outward form of the rite from its substance.
If Witsius says their are two ‘modes’ of communion, that doesn’t militate that one is ‘real’ and the other ‘external’, but rather would indicate that something substantial is common to both in their common communion with Christ.
Or is this some specialized (unspecified) use of the term ‘mode’.