Barlow on RS Clark

I recommend Jon Barlow's response to the lecture by RS Clark posted on the Warfield list. It's sobering. I also recommend following up Clark's lecture by asking, "What about Bob?" Dr. Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary California where Dr. Scott is employed, that is.

Godfrey writes,

Baptism comes as God's pledge at the initiation into our life within his Church. It is once and for all, definitive, as is the beginning of our Christian life. Calvin says that the element itself speaks of beginning. He writes that there is a particular fitness that water is the element, for it speaks of the washing away of sin, conversion, and regeneration. That is what Baptism pledges to us: our sinfulness and a new creation in Christ.

This pledge comes to us with God's promise, and the promise of God in our Baptism is that we are cleansed, forgiven, and renewed. Calvin says that in Baptism we have represented to us that by the blood of Christ our sins are forgiven and we are justified and that by the Holy Spirit we are introduced into newness of life and are sanctified. All of this is represented and promised to us in Baptism. Hence, Calvin continues, the great function of Baptism is that it assures us of God's will individually, because it comes to us individually. Even in the preaching of the Word there is a possibility for people to say, "Well, that's true in general, but it may not be true for me." So God comes to each with the water of Baptism, that visible Word of his, and says to each of us in our Baptism, "I have a promise for you, not just for 'y'all,' but for you."

Therefore in times of distress or doubt or weakness, we have that objective promise of God to look back to. We are strengthened and assured that God does love us, and has promised us forgiveness and renewal, and that the promises of God are without repentance.

It is reported that Martin Luther was once asked, "How do you know you're a Christian?" and Luther's response was, "I've been baptized." That is a bad answer if it means that just because "I've had some water sprinkled on me" or "I've been dunked in some water," willy nilly, "I'm a Christian." That's magic! But that is not what Luther meant. Luther believed that in order to answer the question, "How do I know I'm a Christian?", I need an objective standard. I do not want to be left awash with my feeling in the matter. Feelings are inadequate. God has said something objective, just to me. He has said, "In Baptism, you are mine." So Luther was making a statement of faith: "I know I'm a Christian because when I look to my Baptism, I am reassured in my soul that I'm a Christian; I look to it by faith."

Posted by barb at 1:32 am

- Clark | 04.17.06 | 1:52 am

Hi,

I agree with Bob and he agrees with me. I know this for a couple of reasons.

1) He and I worked closely together on the committee the drafted the WSC statement on justification:
http://69.59.173.95/faculty/wscwritings/testimonyjustification.php

2) We discussed my paper/lecture!

3) Bob has been an opponent of what was known for 3 decades, before it was called "The Federal Vision," as the "Shepherd theology." Bob wrote and argued against these views in public and in private for years.

The reason that we agree with each other and we agree with Calvin and Luther (as WRG quoted him) is that we make the KEY distinction in this discussion that John Barach, Rich Lusk, and Steve Wilkins (to name three) and the other FV fellows don't:

the distinction between internal and external communion in the covenant of grace.

The FV proponents can't appeal to the Reformed language about efficacy and ignore the framework within which the Reformed used it.

Calvin teaches this distinction in his commentary on Gen 17:

John Calvin. And that this is the case, is proved without difficulty; for the promise by which the Lord had adopted them all as children, was common to all: and in that promise, it cannot be denied, that eternal salvation was offered to all. What, therefore, can be the meaning of Paul, when he denies that certain persons have any right to be reckoned among children, except that he is no longer reasoning about the externally offered grace, but about that of which only the elect effectually partake? Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are in this respects accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith. And although this difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs; yet, since the counsel of God is in itself hidden from us, we therefore distinguish the true from the spurious children, by the respective marks of faith and of unbelief (Commentary on Genesis 17:7).

He says that same thing in his 1545 (2nd, Latin) Catechism. Baptism is only efficacious among those who believe. Baptism doesn't replace faith as the instrument of justification.

I don't see why this is so difficult. We are justified sola gratia, sola *fide*. Baptism isn't faith. Baptism is a sign and seal. They are different things and perform different functions. We've (confessional Reformed folk) NEVER taught a temporary, "covenantal," conditional election, justification (ordo salutis) conferred through baptism that can be kept or lost by obedience or disobedience. Rome and the Arminians, in different ways, taught versions of this or doctrines that resemble the FV scheme but the confessional Reformed churches did not.

rsc

R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Westminster Seminary California
rsclark@wscal.edu
http://www.wscal.edu/clark
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church."

- Barb | 04.17.06 | 6:22 pm

But to protect the importance of faith we do not have to deny His presence, which is what many people, in opposition to formalism, want to do. They say, 'No, we don't want to find Christ in the water, we want to find Him just by faith.' But Luther and Calvin's point is that the water bears Christ to us. The water makes Christ present for us because the water contains and visibly declares the promise of God. Calvin loves the phrase of Augustine, that the sacraments are 'visible words.' They're not a different word than what we hear preached or what we read in the Bible. They don't bring a different Christ. They bring the same Christ and His promise in a different way-a way that helps us in our weakness. And it's at this point that Reformed theology says, yes, we do need to see the promise of God as well as hear it. We are weak, our ears are not enough for us. . . we ought to accept the institution of God, which is water, in baptism and bread and wine, in the Supper.

- Clark | 04.17.06 | 6:51 pm

Barb,

Amen! Yes, the sacraments bring us the same Christ and the same gospel. If you check my website you'll see that I've spent some time (and I spent time in class) pushing Reformed folk to take the confessional and classical Reformed doctrine of the sacraments seriously. I've defended the necessity of the means of grace in print here:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/evangelicalfall.php

The Belgic Confession says that in the supper believers are fed on nothing less that the "proper" and "natural" body and blood of Christ. In baptism, we are initiated into the visible covenant community, the name of God is placed on us, we are taken through the judgment waters.

The FV view, however, that the act of baptism confers and temporary, conditional union with Christ, election, justification etc is what is at issue here.

To achieve this end, the FV denies the distinction that Scripture, our confessions, and our theologians have always made, that there are two ways of being in the one covenant of grace. They also tend to deny other central Reformed distinctions as well (e.g., between justification and sanctification!).

The reaction to pietist denegration of the sacraments is not (as I see in the FV movement) to turn to Mercersburg (even though I've defended Nevin) or to Anglo-Catholicism, but to let sacraments do what they're intended to do: confirm faith. The HC Q 65 says that the Spirit creates/works faith through the preaching of the gospel. He *confirms* faith through the Holy Sacraments. They are supplements to the gospel and, in that way, as Calvin said, visible words, the gospel made visible.

To say, as the FV does, however, that baptism unites one to Christ "head for head" and that union (etc) is retained by cooperation with grace, makes baptism into "law" (another of Calvin's favorite distinctions) instead of gospel.

Cheers,

rsc

- pascoe | 04.18.06 | 12:38 am

Dr Clark has consistently stated that he does not see baptism in terms of personal union. Particularly not union with Christ. In other words, Clark sees baptism purely in terms of an impersonal union with an external covenant entity (the visible Church).

This conception of the covenant seems to be at odds with Scripture, which describes God's covenants in deeply personal terms. God refers to Himself as Israel's Husband, and to their idolatries as adultery. The offense is always personal. A personal union has been formed which God Himself describes in the language of a marriage covenant. It could more easily be argued that there is no such thing as a covenant if there is no personal union formed as a result.

Clark's view seems to be the equivalent of suggesting that a marriage does not unite two into one flesh, but that it only creates an external visible structure. The bride gets a different name attached to her, but she has somehow not been united to her husband.

In order for Clark's view to maintain, he would have to argue that Christ is only Husband to members of the invisible Church, and not Husband to the visible Church. Murray is looking better all the time.

As an aside, I continue to affirm that Esau was personally united to God in covenant, thru circumcision. Which is what makes Esau all the more culpable for his actions. Personal covenant union, as in the case of marriage, makes new kinds of unfaithfulness possible which are simply not possible without the reality of a personal union. Adultery, for example.

- pduggie | 04.18.06 | 11:25 am

Sounds to me that if you qualified all FV writings with the word "externally" FV would be exactly what Clark and Calvin are saying. External election (or in calvins term GENERAL election) external justification, external adoption, etc.

Fine. FV will say external from now on. Big whoop. That's what they were trying to say by saying covenantal election and covenantal justification and covenantal grace vs the decretal.

But nobody cared to listen charitably.

- pduggie | 04.18.06 | 11:51 am

Does Calvin count as a "confessional reformed person"?

he teaches "a temporary, 'covenantal,' conditional election"

"That the general election of a people is not always effectual and permanent, a reason readily presents itself, because, when God covenants with them, He does not also give the spirit of regeneration to enable them to preserve in the covenant to the end; but the eternal call, without the internal efficacy of grace. which would be sufficient for their preservation, is a kind of medium between the rejection of all mankind and the election of the small number of believers."

- Clark | 04.18.06 | 12:54 pm

It's not true to say that I don't see baptism in terms of personal union with Christ.

Listen closely please: I am saying that GOD HAS NOT PROMISED TO EFFECT THAT UNION THROUGH BAPTISM. -- caps for clarity and only shouting a little.

God the Spirit effects that union by working through the preaching of the gospel.

Baptism witnesses to, signifies, and seals (promises to those who haven't yet believed and guarantees to those who have believed) that personal union.

Baptism very much "about" personal union.

Baptism does confer membership in the covenant of grace. Baptism *recognizes* that membership.

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
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church."

- pduggie | 04.18.06 | 2:37 pm

Would we say then, that we have some kind of union with Christ prior to our justification?

Since the scriptures say that we are "buried with him in baptism" and that in baptism we are "baptized into his death" we have a prior union effected by the Spirit, and that baptism comes in later to strengthen or confirm that union by actually applying Christ's death to us?

I guess that fits the WCF, where we have union with Christ in our regeneration/call, apart from the imputation of Christ's death and his righteousness. It would be a union in law, since regeneration is where the law is written on our hearts. And this takes place prior to justification.

Doesn't baptism confer membership in the visible church, though? Or does that need to be denied?

- pduggie | 04.18.06 | 2:45 pm

Also, why can't the preaching of the Gospel simply include the gospel-as-it-was-offered-in-baptism.

It is easy to narrate how God can use the baptism in an "instrumental" fashion to create faith in a child. He is told of God, his sin, and told of Christ's death, and then told that because his parents want him to be saved from God's wrath, they baptized him as an infant, which signified God's claim over him as a member of God's family, and that by his Baptism he is bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh.

Hearing of the gospel promise to him in his baptism, the child believes.

In such a way, cannot the baptism of the child be an instrument, along with the Word, that creates faith?

If "instrument" should not be used to describe the functioning of baptism in this narrative, what term should be used?


Its a curious thing that union with Christ is not effected by baptism, but Godfrey draws assurance from something subsequent to his union with Christ that doesn't effect it. Why not draw assurance from the thing that actually effects union with Christ?

- pduggie | 04.18.06 | 3:41 pm

You write "Baptism does confer membership in the covenant of grace. Baptism *recognizes* that membership. "

Is there a typo here? Did you mean to say NOT confer? The two sentences seem to be in opposition, but only if you say "not confer"

But maybe you meant to say 'does confer' because elsewhere you write "[baptism] brings every baptized person into an external relation to the sphere of God's saving activity, i.e., the covenant of grace." Which sounds like baptism confers an external membership in the Covenant of Grace, so it *does* confer membership, as well as *recongizing* it.

- pascoe | 04.18.06 | 10:40 pm

I'm not sure how to take Dr Clark's latest comments above where he says:

"It's not true to say that I don't see baptism in terms of personal union with Christ."

In his recent reply on Barlow's blog, post #25, Dr Clark is quite adamant:

"The Reformed churches do not confess and never have confessed that baptism brings one into a union with Christ. Faith brings into union with Christ. The Holy Spirits faith through the preaching of the Holy Gospel."
(see http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867592%22 ,reply post #25, 2006-03-29 03:27:50)

Clark goes on to say in post #33:

"Properly, narrowly, baptism does not unite us to Christ, the Spirit does, through the preached Gospel, creating faith which looks to Christ and his finished work.

Is there a broader sense in which the sacraments unite us to Christ? Yes, but now we should be very careful. We cannot say that baptism unites every baptized person "head for head" to Christ in exactly the same way.

We should say that baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the visible covenant community."

And later in the same post Clark explains:

"Esau was never justified, never united to Christ, never
adopted ever and any way whatever. Period. Full stop.

Esau was only and ever reprobate. Still, contra the Baptists, he was a member of the covenant of grace."

In fairness, I believe I have described Clark's view correctly. Clark does not see baptism in terms of union with Christ, rather he sees baptism in terms of external membership in a covenant entity. Clark apparently views a covenant as an external structure which may or may not involve any personal union. This is how Clark is able to argue that Esau is in an external old testament covenant, but never personally united with God (even though God calls Himself the Husband of that covenant when He betroths Himself to Israel).

I think it may be helpful for Dr Clark to consider what the FV folks are saying--that union with Christ is not simply a matter of automatic blessing, but instead will also be of cursing for the faithless unbeliever who will be removed from that union as a branch and burned. Just like the "cup of blessing" which Christ served can also be a cup of judgment for those who drink unworthily.

So I can agree with Dr Clark (as I think most FV writers would) that not everyone is baptized into union with Christ in exactly the same sense. Some are baptized into union with Christ for vindication and blessing, while others (exposed as unbelievers and fruitless branches) are baptized into union with Christ for condemnation and cursing.

We see this very plainly with Esau. Esau was united to God by circumcision, but Esau was cursed because of his unbelief and faithlessness toward this personal union. Outside of the context of personal union with God (the covenant Husband), it really would not have even been possible for Esau to have given the personal offense that he gave by despising his covenant birthright.

In post #19, Dr Clark says, concerning the imputed active obedience of Christ (IAO) and the view that baptism unites us to Christ:

"Whatever the gravity of the denial of the IAO ... it may (note the hesitation) not do the same degree of damage to the Reformed faith that baptismal union with Christ does, since the latter error is systemic. It's the difference between a serious wound (e.g., hacking off a leg by accident) and a fatal disease (e.g., HIV)."

I believe that Clark's rhetoric is over the top, and uncalled for, but I'm still hopeful that there is room for patient discussion of these differences.

- pduggie | 04.21.06 | 11:08 am

The difficulty with saying that "others (exposed as unbelievers and fruitless branches) are baptized into union with Christ for condemnation and cursing" is that we don't want to say as Kline does that baptism is "neutral news". While it's true that the baptism of the reprobate serves to condemn them further, it is messed up to say that the intention of baptism was to mess them up.

Just as the free offer of the gospel serves to condemn further those who reject it, without undercutting its well-meant nature, likewise baptism (and circumcision)'s gracious intention is to be preserved.

- pascoe | 04.21.06 | 2:15 pm

I agree with pduggie that there is certainly nothing neutral about baptism. It's not an arm's-length, external proposition. It is drawing near to Christ into a personal bond. It is union with Christ. Baptism is no more neutral than two getting married and becoming one flesh.

But far from suggesting "neutral news", my point was that this union can be very dangerous for those who are faithless and unbelieving. It will not end well for them. In fact, it would have been better for them to have never been baptized. Hebrews warns, "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

By saying that someone could be "baptized for condemnation", I was only trying to express my agreement with Dr Clark that not everyone is baptized into union with Christ in exactly the same sense. Some are baptized into union with the result of blessing and vindication, others with the result of condemnation and judgment. I wasn't trying to express a view about God's unrevealed intentions in any given baptism.

If Scripture says that "the Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked _for_ the day of evil" (Prov 16:4), we may not wish to suggest that it would be "messed up to say that the intention of creation was to mess them up".

Creation does not cease to be gracious even if the wicked end in condemnation. Just as the cup of blessing (mentioned in the earlier post) does not cease to be a gracious cup of blessing even when it brings death to those who drink unworthily. The Lord has made everything for its own purpose.