An apology for the erudite and scholarly Christian gentleman, Dr. R. Scott Clark

Dr. Clark has done a service for us “fv boys”–as he refers to us in his touching paternal affection. Unfortunately, I can’t own any of the things he lists as they relate to motives, nor even to many of the actual acts he lists. But rather than see all that wonderful ministry go to waste, I thought I would write up an accurate apology for the crimes I have committed–something that gets to the root problem.

I repent of having read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as a reliable guide for Biblical doctrine.

I repent of learning that faith consists principally in “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” but also more generally faith “believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” This is obviously a “complex instrument” (Theses #38-40) and a denial of sola fide and solo Christo.

I repent of learning that repentance is necessary for pardon and that repentance includes endeavoring after new obedience. I renounce utterly the idea that three things are required for escaping the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of our transgression of the law. Listing faith as a requirement with repentance and “he diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation” is obviously “another Gospel.” I renounce it all.

I renounce the decalogue given as part of the administration of the covenant of Grace. I hereby declare that no document which takes the Preface of the Decalogue as a type of the Christian Gospel covenant and does not even mention the Abrahamic covenant, can be a reliable guide to covenant theology. Never again will I teach a congregation to believe from the Ten Commandments “that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.”

I recant the definition of a sacrament as “an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” I renounce all words like “apply” or “confer” in relation to the sacraments and now confess that all those words are misleading in the Westminster documents. Only undefined “signs and seals” may be our mantra if we believe the gospel, and perhaps the modern, anachronistic, and conveniently anemic definition of “exhibit.”

I renounce improving our baptism rather than our effectual calls. I repent of teaching the generality of professing Christians that we should all believe that “privileges and benefits” were “conferred and sealed” by baptism. I repent of preaching that we should be “growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament” and now will teach that we must gain those blessings which we never possessed by exercising faith. I repent of believing that Romans 6 refers to water baptism, that one improves one’s baptism by “drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace.” And I most heartily condemn myself for thinking baptism appointed me “to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.” (Here I must especially thank you for your consistent and faithful example of what real Christian behavior looks like in this regard! What a witness to the truth you are!)

I repent of looking to contemporary public confessional documents from the Westminster Assembly as a way to come to a more sure understanding of what they meant in the confession and catechisms. Specifically, I repent of reading the Westminster Assemblies instructions for baptism in their Directory of Public Worship as if it might have anything to do with the claim that “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered,” as in when the minister is instructed to say:

That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ:

That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal:

That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature:

That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ:

That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before:

That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God:

That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers;

and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh:

That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:

That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life;

and that outward baptism is not so necessary, that, through the want thereof, the infant is in danger of damnation, or the parents guilty, if they do not contemn or neglect the ordinance of Christ, when and where it may be had.

I likewise repent of following the advice of Dr. Ligon Duncan and listening to Dr. Chad Van Dixhoorn regarding the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in reference to the original intent of the Westminster Confession.

There are many other such details I could add to this, but I will stop here.

I repent of repeatedly reading Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Thus, I repent of agreeing with Ursinus about what the Heidelberg Catechism teaches about the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. There is no excuse for my poor judgment. Obviously Dr. Clark and the other many noble sages in Escondido know the meaning of the catechism better than Ursinus.

I repent of learning from Ursinus that “good works are necessary to salvation, not as a cause to an effect, or as if they merited a reward, but as a part of salvation itself, or as an antecedent to a consequent, or as a means without which we cannot obtain the end.” Or that the promises of the gospel are made upon the condition “of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience” (p. 3). I renounce Ursinus and all the other Reformers who taught of the Mosaic and Gospel covenants that they are one “In the condition in respect to ourselves. In each covenant, God requires from men faith and obedience. “Walk before me and be thou perfect.” “Repent and believe the Gospel.” (Gen. 17:1. Mark 1:15.) The new covenant, therefore, agrees with the old in that which relates to the principal conditions, both on the part of God, and on the part of man….” [p. 99].

I repent of reading the scholastics, the Presbyterians, Calvin, other church historians, even Kline! etc.

And time will fail if I go on line by line book by book and renounce all the other false teachers who have misled me about the Gospel and basic Reformed Theology 101: Francis Turretin, Benedict Pictet, A. A. Hodge, and all the rest. I should never have touched them. I should have known that the only true knowledge of Reformed theology comes from your pull quotes from Witsius, a couple of erudite works by the Reformed guru Meredith Kline, and your own class notes. (Of course, I really have to repent of reading Kline too. I started with Images of the Spirit, which was a pretty straightforward gateway drug that led to James B. Jordan)
I especially repent of reading John Calvin without your gentle wise guidance, and for having the horrible temerity to ever think that a church historian other than yourself might have some insight into Calvin’s covenant theology.

I repent of the Scriptures and Reformed Confessions and Reformed theologians who taught me that God’s grace is given to creatures nonsinful situations.

I repent of mucking up the new American sola fide by affirming the following heresies:

Although the sacraments are external means and instruments applying (on the part of God) the promise of grace and justification, this does not hinder faith from being called the internal instrument and means on the part of man for receiving this benefit offered in the word and sealed by the sacraments [16.7.20].The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word and sacraments (by which the blessing of justification is presented and sealed to us on the part of God), which we maintain are necessarily required here; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, consist with each other in the highest degree [16.8.5].

…. although the other virtues do not justify with faith, still faith cannot justify in their absence, much less the opposite vices being present. For faith cannot be true except in connection with the virtues (which if they do not contribute to justification, still contribute to the existence and life of faith, which the presence of vices would destroy) [16.8.14].

Hence it is evident that the question [“Are Good Works Necessary to Salvation”] here does not concern the necessity of merit, causality, and efficiency–whether good works are necessary to effect salvation or to acquire it by right. (For this belongs to another controversy, of which hereafter). Rather the question concerns the necessity of means, of presence and of connection or order–Are they required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold [17.3.3].

…although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of our salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them–that thus our religion may be freed from those most foul calumnies everywhere cast mot unjustly upon it by the Romanists (as if it were the mistress of impiety and the cushion of carnal licentiousness and security)… [17.3.4].

I repent of agreeing with some guy named Hart about the lasting value to be found in the work and thought of John Williamson Nevin, rather than siding with your unresearched instincts condemning him.

I realize this only scratches the surface. Perhaps I can get into more specifics another time since it seems obvious that you will require many acts of penance.

Your humble supplicant.

12 thoughts on “An apology for the erudite and scholarly Christian gentleman, Dr. R. Scott Clark

  1. pduggie

    I repent of believing that Jesus loves the little children, ALL the children of the world.

    I repent of beliveing that Jesus loves me this I know, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO, when its only the immediate testimony of the Spirit that assures me of Jesus love for me.

    Reply
  2. Greg

    Mark, glad you brought the definitions from the standards on baptism. I cannot find a ddefinitive answer anywhere on the meanings of exhibit and confer. How are you understanding them? I’ve looked in the Oxford Dictionary but still am not sure. It seems like ‘exhibit’ has to mean something different in the Confession than it does in the LC where it is used with confer. Anyway, I would like to hear how you define them and some sources that do a good job of treating them. BTW, I do wonder if the lack of thorough treatment of these words is an indication of how far removed we are from the standards.

    Reply
  3. mark Post author

    The meaning of “confer” has not changed. For “exhibit” however, consider the testimony of A. A. Hodge:

    The sacraments were designed to “apply “– i.e., actually to convey — to believers the benefits of the new covenant. If they are ” seals” of the covenant, they must of course, as a legal form of investiture, actually convey the grace represented to those to whom it belongs. Thus a deed conveys an estate, or the key handed over in the presence of witnesses the possession of a house from the owner to the renter. Our Confession is explicit and emphatic on this subject. The old English word “exhibit,” there used, does not mean to show forth; but, in the sense of the Latin exhibere, from which it is derived, to administer, to apply. Compare the following: “A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” S. Cat., q. 92. “A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation.” L. Cat., q. 162. “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them.” Conf. Faith, ch. xxvii., section 3. “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost,” etc.

    Reply
  4. Greg

    Thanks. I thought ‘confer’ meant to bestow or grant or give over. I have been confused by the standards when they say ‘does not only offer, but exhibits and confers’. What is the difference between ‘exhibiting’ and ‘confering’? I don’t have access to the Oxford online anymore, so I cannot look the old usage up.

    Reply
  5. Greg

    That’s what I was looking for. I am a bit embarrassed by my ignorance. It seems like when I read different commentaries on this very question, the words not clearly defined (i.e. when the divines used this word the meant ‘x’). Hodge seems the clearest, thanks for directing me there, but even he does not make that clear. I wish we had a more exhaustive critical commentary on our standards. I guess that is what i am looking for. But again, you’ve helped me out here by clearing up the point of the repetition.

    Reply
  6. garver

    I suspect there is a nuance of difference.

    “Confer” implies an effectiveness with regard to the recipient. Thus a university confers a degree, e.g., a BA thereby rendering the person to whom the degree was conferred a Bachelor of Arts. I think it is slightly stronger than “exhibit.”

    In some contexts “exhibit” can be more objective, with less of an emphasis on effective reception, having more of the sense of “to hold out, to tender, to proffer, to present, to give over to.” The connotation is one that goes beyond a mere representation or picture of what is exhibited, implying instead that what is exhibited is actually made present and distributed for the purpose of being received, even if not always rightly received. That’s the sense I get for “exhibere” in sacramental contexts in guys like Bucer, Junius, etc.

    Still, in medical contexts in the 17th century, “exhibit” did have the sense of “to administer,” as when a physician administers medication to a patient. And that seems much closer to “confer.”

    Reply
  7. mark Post author

    Greg, if Hodge is right then it is a redundancy to emphasis and clarity. In this case we can be happy for it because, if they had only written, “exhibit,” we might never notice the shift.

    Reply
  8. Wayne

    I think Joel’s right. Documents like these tend to minimize redundancy – so I’ve been told by a Constitutional Law professor that we all know.

    Reply
  9. Greg

    Joel, that is an interesting distinction and one that proves my frustration with existing commentaries. The analogy you used is similarly used by Hodge in his explanation of ‘exhibit’. He uses the example of a deed conveying land to an individual.

    Reply
  10. Pingback: adamnaranjo.com » Archive » An Apology for Dr. Clark

  11. Pingback: World Without End » Archive » Mark Horne’s Apology for Dr. Clark

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *