I haven’t read the rest of this entry but I have to just add my testimony here:
“One side tends to argue that genuinely Reformed doctrine teaches one covenant before and after the fall, the imputation of Jesus’ passive obedience only, and faith that justifies because it obeys. The other side in contrast holds that the Reformed doctrine denies those very things. Without equivocating, both sides cannot be correct” (p. 5).
So writes Dr. Clark.
Utter crap. Lying from beginning to end.
- Adam’s covenant is not ours. His covenant, which demanded perfect personal obedience is over. Otherwise, we would all be dead.
- Imputation of active obedience of Christ, has not only been articulated on this blog, it has been defended.
- Faith justifies because, in giving us faith, we are united to Christ our righteousness–not because it is obedient.
Awhile back Clark asked if he was an antinomian. He seems to have been treating this as a question about his theological formulations. No, Dr. Clark, it’s your life–the one you live in public by your bramble-firespreading mouth.
But it does make something clear. The Apostle Paul testified against his Pharisaical accusers:
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.
Can it be any clearer what sort of life results when people don’t believe they will be held accountable before God at the Last Day? You don’t have to imagine it. We are all getting a live demonstration.
Just to clarify my allegation – I’m saying that Dr. Clark’s theology is antinomian in that though he does affirm the third use of the law, he essentially falls on the Zane Hodges side of the lordship debate – denying that God requires faithfulness. Of greater concern to me, however, is that he really offers no way for God to impute righteousness to sinners; he rejects the idea that union with Christ is the means of imputation, and what he offers in its stead is Divine fiat – even comparing the way that God constitutes us “righteous” to the way in which he made the world. The problem is this – if God can make us righteous by fiat, then Cur Deus Homo? And interestingly, Anselm and Aquinas both see Christ’s sacrifice as “fitting” but not necessary for our salvation. Anyway, I just think that someone with so many idiosyncrasies in his own thought should look around at all the glass walls and warehouse his arsenal of rocks for a while. Physician, heal thyself.
I also haven’t seen the FV argue that “genuinely reformed doctrine” holds to one covenant. I’ve seen FV guys hold that there are two kinds of genuinely reformed doctrine, one that highlights similarities between covenants (and notes that the chapter in the WCF is on “God’s Covenant With Man” not “God’s covenantS with man”) and one that dichotomizes. I guess that means he may be formally correct that there is an argument that “genuinely Reformed doctrine teaches one covenant” but those who so argue don’t deny the status of genuine Reformed doctrine to those who might argue otherwise.
I recently picked up that book too. I’ve noticed that the various authors, even LDIII’s blurb on the back, are seizing on the phrase “Covenant Nomism” as a unifying label for NPP,FV, and Shepherd.
But highlighting similarities is not what Dr. Clark said. Furthermore, no one believes Adam had to trust in Jesus in his death and resurrection to be right before God. The real issue is that some resist Kline and still believe the confessional position that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of Grace.
Here is what I do not understand… I know that Clark teaches at a Seminary that contains the word Westminster but does that make him Presbyterian? Why is he so concerned about ministers within the PCA or CREC?
Would he even take the Supper with a TR minister from the PCA?
Odd…
al sends
Found this in the Church Order of the URCNA:
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.
If someone like Wilson, for example, is not guilty of denying the faith then is Clark not guilty of just such a sin as to be worthy of depostion from office?
al sends
“Can it be any clearer what sort of life results when people don’t believe they will be held accountable before God at the Last Day?”
Many tears will flow..