Recovering the Reformed Confession? Calvin Against R. Scott Clark and Richard Muller

Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valor (namely, discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” in favor of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed.” --Richard Muller

Some time ago I wrote a book review of R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confession.  At that time I did not realize how duplicitous this title actually was.  I recently read the first volume of Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:  The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 1, 2nd edition. "Prolegomena to Theology". #1 (See footnote below).  I am citing and quoting from the Logos ebook edition.

Ironically, for all the bluster, R. Scott Clark is not promoting confessional Reformed theology at all.  What he is actually forcefully advocating is a post-reformation reinterpretation of the original confessional documents of the Protestant Reformation.  Richard Muller openly admits that he agrees with Amyraldianism, not the Reformed confessions.  Neither the Three Forms of Unity nor the Westminster Standards allow for any hypothetical atonement or for any alleged contradictions between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of God through irresistible grace.  Yet Muller tries to argue that the Helvetic Consensus Formula is trumped by latitudinarianism within the Reformed camp:

There were also bitter battles among the Reformed—over Cocceian theology, over the espousal of Cartesian principles, and over the various teachings of the Academy of Saumur, over the soteriology of Richard Baxter, and over various responses to the Socinian denial of an essential or ad intra divine attribute of punitive justice. On none of these issues, however, did the Reformed churches rupture into separate confessional bodies or identify a particular theologically defined group as beyond the bounds of the confessions, as had been the case at the Synod of Dort. Amyraut was, after all, exonerated by several national synods in France, and the debate over his “hypothetical universalism” did not lead to the charge of heterodoxy against others, like Davenant, Martinius, and Alsted, who had, both at Dort and afterward, maintained similar lines of argument concerning the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.104 The Westminster Confession was in fact written with this diversity in view, encompassing confessionally the variant Reformed views on the nature of the limitation of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect, just as it was written to be inclusive of the infra- and the supralapsarian views on predestination.105 Amyraut, moreover, arguably stood in agreement with intraconfessional adversaries like Turretin on such issues as the fundamental articles of the faith.106

Even when it was censured in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, the Salmurian theology was not identified as a heresy but as a problematic teaching that troubled the confessional orthodoxy of the church: the preface to the Formula specifically identifies the faculty of Saumur as “respected foreign brethren,” who stand on the same “foundation of faith” but whose recent teachings have become a matter of grave dispute.   . . .  [#2].

Notice that Muller does not argue whether or not the Amyraldian view is biblical or confessional.  He immediately pivots to whether or not the Reformed consensus was willing to tolerate a deviation from the Canons of Dort in order to preserve a united front against the Remonstrandts.  This is a capitulation to a downgrade in the interest of political concerns, not a question that was settled strictly on the issue of biblical propositions.  Earlier in this work, Muller betrays his own presuppositions which taint his objectivity on the matter.  He openly defies the Institutes of the Christian Religion and disagrees with Calvin.  In doing so, Muller is essentially disagreeing with the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards as well:

Indeed, any variation of doctrine incapable of being accommodated to Calvin’s 1559 Institutes can come to be viewed by the older scholarship as a deviation from the norm of Reformed theology—without any recognition of the fact that doctrinal variations and even highly polemical debates over doctrinal formulae that took place within the confessional boundaries all belonged to the broad stream of Reformed orthodoxy.

This approach, albeit characteristic of much twentieth-century historiography, does not accurately represent the seventeenth-century orthodox understanding (or, indeed, understandings) of “orthodoxy.” To define orthodoxy in terms of the more traditionalist line of Geneva, culminating in Turretin, or in terms of the Voetian theology at Utrecht prejudices the case from the start by creating subconfessional lines of demarcation for orthodoxy and by offering an anachronistic picture of a “rigid orthodoxy” operating within the narrow limits of a single school. The historical materials do not support the picture. Just as Calvin did not speak for the entire early Reformed tradition, so was Geneva less than the arbitrator of the Reformed tradition in the seventeenth century.  [#3].

Did you notice that Muller is appealing to historiography rather than the Reformed confessions or even Scripture?  That would be anathema to the latitudinarian views of Muller since his authority is his own interpretation of history rather than the final authority of Holy Scripture.  To do so would amount to what R. Scott Clark and Muller derisively call "biblicism."  Muller does so by linking the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to the Socinian rationalism and the misuse of Scripture to justify denying the trinity and calling this "biblicism."  This is nothing more than prejudicial sophistry on the part of Muller and R. Scott Clark.   

It should also be pointed out that when Muller and R. Scott Clark refer to the term "Reformed", they are actually not affirming the traditional Reformed confessions at all.  Instead, they are appealing to the various post-reformation deviations from Scripture and the confessional standards!  Muller likes to water down the Bible and the confessional standards by appealing to the detractors instead of the biblical standards deduced from the Bible and summarized by the Westminster Standards and the Dutch Three Forms of Unity.  In case you do not know what those are, the Westminster Standards are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.  The Three Forms of Unity are the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort.  But Muller openly admits this downgrade throughout the first volume of his work:

As for the terms “Calvinist” and “Calvinism,” I tend to avoid them as less than useful to the historical task. If, by “Calvinist,” one means a follower of Calvin who had nothing to say that was different from what Calvin said, then one would be hard put to find any Calvinists in the later sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. If by Calvinist, one means a later exponent of a theology standing within the confessional boundaries described by such documents as the Gallican Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism, then one will have the problem of accounting for the many ways in which such thinkers—notably, Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Bartholomaus Keckermann, William Perkins, Franciscus Junius, and Gulielmus Bucanus, just to name a few—differ from Calvin both doctrinally and methodologically. One might even be forced to pose Calvin against the Calvinists.3 Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valor (namely, discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” in favor of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed.”  [#4].

If I am "forced" to pose Calvin against the "Calvinists", then so be it.  I agree with Calvin's Institutes and with Calvin's two books against the Romanists--which amazingly also happen to be against the "Calvinists" that both Muller and R. Scott Clark agree with.  Calvin's two books are:  1.  The Eternal Predestination of God and 2.  The Secret Providence of God.  Both books are translated by Henry Cole.  I also recommend Henry Beveridge's translation of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.  This is where the latitudinarianism comes in.  Did you see that Muller is appealing to the multitude of names that he drops in his historiographical study instead of one single interpretation of the Calvinist position?  Following this line of thought, one could just as well take the Romanist view which amounts to a universalistic soteriology following Vatican II.

I personally do not like sophistry, duplicity, and outright misdirection.  This seems to violate the 9th commandment because it redefines terms that the lay reader is not familiar with in order to make them think that they are actually in agreement with the Bible, the Westminster Standards, and the Dutch Three Forms of Unity, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.  James White likes to call those who disagree with these reinterpretations "cage stage" Calvinists.  Scott Clark calls us biblicists, fundamentalists, rationalists, and other derogatory terms.  

One example of such misdirection is the Theocast channel on YouTube, which is run by two Baptists who claim to be "Reformed" while adamantly repudiating "Calvinism", which they refer to as those who advocate for a logical and fundamental interpretation of the Bible, the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.  The hosts of the Theocast channel are continually juxaposing the moral law and the Gospel as if the two are mutually contradictory instead of harmonious expositions of the whole counsel of God.  (Acts 20:27 NKJV).  The channel is openly anti-Calvinist while claiming to advocate for the "reformed perspective."

Even worse, these dissimulators fail to reveal that they are basing their theology on the historiography of Richard Muller and others who have an agenda that leads in a more latitudinarian and liberal direction.  Muller's view can legitimately be linked to neo-orthodoxy, since he openly rejects any logical or rational explanation of the Bible from an internally consistent theology which is axiomatic.

The short of it all is that R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, is not an unequivocal affirmation of the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, or the Heidelberg Catechism.  It is instead an affirmation of the latitudinarianism of Muller's analytical historiography.  Muller is affirming 18th to 20th century compromises that contradict Calvin and the objective standards of the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort.  Do not be fooled by these dissimulating liars.  I prefer to be castigated as a "hyper-Calvinist" along with Calvin, Turretin, the Dutch divines at Dort, and the Westminster divines.  I prefer to be ridiculed as a rationalist who affirms the propositional revelation in Holy Scripture.  I prefer to be called a biblicist and a fundamentalist rather than to compromise God's written word.  Richard Muller and other detractors from the original Calvinist Reformers do not speak for me.  I identify as a fundamentalist Calvinist, not a neo-Calvinist who falsely pits being Reformed against Calvin and Geneva and Turretin.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17-18 KJV)

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (Jn. 10:35 KJV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim. 3:16 KJV)

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet. 1:21 KJV)

#1.  Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 1: Prolegomena to Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.

#2.  Ibid., pp. 76-77.

#3.  Ibid., p. 79.

#4.  Ibid., p. 30.

Gordon H. Clark: Saving Faith Results in Loving God and Obeying God

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, . . . 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.  WCF 14:2

Here is the key to the paradoxes, the seeming contradictions, that arise from this chapter:  love or obedience is a good work that is inseparably connected with faith and regeneration.  It is neither the basis nor the means of justification; but a faith or an alleged faith that does not evidence itself in love or good works is not saving faith.  --Dr. Gordon H. Clark

. . . Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.  Article VII, Thirty-nine Articles of Religion  --Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

In several Facebook discussion groups and other places on the internet I have encountered those who claim to follow the Scripturalism of Dr. Gordon H. Clark or that they are Calvinists but who also deny that sanctification is a process that follows after conversion.  But all the parts of Scripture are related to all the other parts and none of the Scriptures can be broken off from the whole of the Bible.  John 10:35.  Some hold that justification by faith means that the Christian is not under the law whatsoever.   But the truth is that Christians are not free from the moral law.  They are free from the penalty of the law and the requirements of the covenant of works as a means of justification.  No one could possibly meet the conditions to fulfull all the moral law as a covenant of works.  This is why justification is an objective and finished work of Christ on the cross as well as an eternal decree.

There are others who try to isolate Dr. Gordon H. Clark's explanation and definition of saving faith as knowledge plus intellectual assent from the rest of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  As I said in an earlier post, this would be a mistake since Dr. Clark viewed propositions as a part of a larger logical system.  Scripture can be summarized in a logical system and that logical system is the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Saving faith is not alone but is instead a part of the entire system of theological and biblical truth summarized in several of the Reformed confessions.

But just to be clear, Dr. Clark also said that love is not an emotion. He viewed love as obedience to the commands of Christ and the moral law of God.  Love cannot tell someone whether to side with the Russians or ISIS.  Love cannot tell someone right from wrong.  The only way to give the word love any meaning is to relate it to the commandments of God.  The following quote from Dr. Clark removes any confusion about justification by faith, what saving faith is, and what love is:

As a preliminary step in specifying the meaning of love, one may cite John 14:15, 21, and John 15:10, 14, where love, if not formally defined as obedience, is so closely connected with it that there seems to be no room for anything else.  1 John 2:3-5 supports this, and 1 John 5:2 says, "By this we know that we love (agapomen) the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments."  It would seem therefore that the visible characteristic of love is obedience, and love itself is a desire to obey.  Is there any reason to suppose that Paul disagreed with John's concept of love?

2  "And if I have prophecy and know all the secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to change the position of the mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Again, Paul uses subjunctives in present general conditions, nothing implied:  a person without love, one who habitually refuses to obey the commandments, does not have knowledge and faith.  Surely Paul would not write a chapter to deny justification by faith alone and assert justification by obedience.  Here is the key to the paradoxes, the seeming contradictions, that arise from this chapter:  love or obedience is a good work that is inseparably connected with faith and regeneration.  It is neither the basis nor the means of justification; but a faith or an alleged faith that does not evidence itself in love or good works is not saving faith.   (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:1-2).

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  First Corinthians:  A Contemporary Commentary.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1975).  P. 208

So for all those hyper-Calvinists and antinomians out there who deny that Christians have an obligation to obey God, it would seem that Scripture and the Westminster Confession disagree.  (Romans 6:1-2).  Saving faith results in a changed life, not a life that habitually and deliberately turns the grace of God into lasciviousness and disobedience.  (Jude 1:3-4; 1 John 3:4-6).  This is not to say that Christians reach sinless perfection.  They do not.  But ironically the antinomians believe they are sinless because they are no longer under the law and it is the law alone that can reveal that Christians and everyone else sins (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7).  Christians are not under the law as a covenant of works.  But they are under the law as their duty to live and love by faith in obedience to Christ and His Gospel.  (Romans 10:16; Isaiah 53:1; John 12:38; Romans 3:3).

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 14  Of Saving Faith

2.      By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; (John 4:42, 1 Thess. 2:13, 1 John 5:10, Acts 24:14) and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, (Rom. 16:26) trembling at the threatenings, (Isa. 66:2) and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. (Heb. 11:13, 1 Tim. 4:8) But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (John 1:12, Acts 16:31, Gal. 2:20, Acts 15:11)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Even Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, who was the English Reformer who was burned at the stake by Bloody Mary or Mary Tudor, said the following in the revised Articles of Religion:

VII. Of the Old Testament. THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore there are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.   Thirty-nine Articles of Religion

Common Grace: Condemned by the Reformed Creeds

Unconfessional Reformed Anathemas

I've been thinking lately about the state of Christ's church on earth.  The Roman Catholic Church is a synagogue of satan and the pope is an antichrist.  The Eastern churches are synergistic and semi-pelagian.  The Arminians teach a form of semi-pelagian synergism that is essentially a works based religion where election and perseverance are conditional on man and not on God's mighty power and sovereignty.

Even worse the so-called "Reformed" churches these days are to one degree or another liberal.  Most have either deleted or added to the classical confessions of faith which are supposed to provide a catholic or universal basis for Christian doctrine and fellowship.  Most modern Reformed churches have either caved to a form of semi-neo-orthodoxy or semi-Arminianism (read three points of common grace, God's unfulfilled desire to save the reprobate, the well meant offer).

So-called "calvinistic" Baptists or "particular" Baptists are unconfessional and essentially Anabaptist since they place as much emphasis on personal revelations and leadings of the "spirit" as they do on Scripture.  Basically, Baptists have more in common with Pentecostals than with Presbyterians or Anglican Reformed believers.  Any emphasis on "believers" baptism is an outright denial of unconditional election since this ignores the fact that God elects prior to the foundation of the world, not at the moment someone receives Christ by faith.  Credo-baptism has more in common with decisional conversion or the altar call conversion of Charles Finney than with the paedo-baptism taught by the foreshadow of infant circumcision in the Old Testament.  The overemphasis on individual conversion ignores that God works through the church as His normative appointed instrument or means of saving His elect.  The OT church was the nation of Israel and the NT church was established at the day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  (Acts 2:1-4; 38-39).

Anglicans are no better.  The vast majority of them are either Arminian or Anglo-Catholic or liberal.  The odds of finding a biblical Anglican congregation is about nil.  

Although I greatly admire the Primitive Baptists, they think that God's elect can remain in false churches or religions and that the elect do not need conversion.  This makes about as much sense as universalism.  All roads lead to God?   (Acts 4:10, 12; John 14:6; John 5:24-25; John 6:37-44, 65).  God has appointed preaching as the normative means for saving His elect.  (Romans 10:7-17).  How this escapes the Primitive Baptists I do not know.  But again, Baptists are closer to the Anabaptists than to truly Reformed theology.

And when I point out the Reformed confessions in a theological discussion on Facebook I am indirectly called "impatient" and "intolerant" by those who claim to be intolerant of heresy and Arminianism.  It seems to me that "belonging" to a social club is more important than biblical truth for most "Reformed" believers.

As I have said before, if I have to stand alone for the truth expressed in Scripture and the Reformed confessions, so be it.  If the semi-Arminian "Calvinists" wish to condemn traditional and classical Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism" so be it.  Unfortunately, not one of the Reformed confessions makes common grace or the free offer of the Gospel a doctrinal standard.  Those are Arminian doctrines, not Reformed doctrines.

 But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. 38 "Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest." (Matthew 9:36-38 NKJ)

Religious Uncertainty: R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession

R. Scott Clark's false accusation of an illegitimate quest for religious certainty (QIRC) is nothing more than the positive assertion of a quest for an illegimate religious uncertainty (QIRU), ambiguity, relativism, subjectivism, and an outright denial of special revelation in the fully inspired Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. -- Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

A Critical Review: Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, by R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark. Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008). 362 pp.

Although I generally agree with Westminster Theological Seminary, California's theological outlook on the law/gospel distinction, the two kingdoms theology, and a solid commitment to a Reformed and confessional theology, I can only say that Scott Clark's book is confusing and ambiguous and even self-contradictory on several levels. What is particularly troubling is the tendency of Westminster California's professors to read Van Til's theology of analogy into every mention of the doctrine of Scripture. This is true of Mike Horton's new book, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). I will be reviewing Horton's book further in upcoming posts. (See Part One).

Be that as it may, I highly recommend Clark's book but not because I agree with his perspective or even his observations, recommendations or conclusions.  Moreover, I do agree mostly with his understanding of covenantal theology and two kingdoms theology drawn from Scripture. Clark is strongest when he does an historical survey of the regulative principle of worship as it existed just after the Reformation. His reporting of the various views on idolatry and the prescription of Scripture for worship is excellent regarding the Puritans and of the practices under John Calvin in Geneva. However, I would liked to have seen more about the sacrifices made by the Puritans and the English Reformers like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Bishop Hugh Latimer, and Bishop Nicholas Ridley, who all died under the reign of Bloody Mary or Mary Tudor. In particular, it is common knowledge that two Puritans, John Hooper and Peter Martyr Vermigli, were close advisors to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer during his reform of the Book of Common Prayer (1549-1552).

The strength of Clark's book is that he rightly points out the problems with an over-emphasis on pietism and an existentialist direct encounter with God, which basically amounts to mysticism. Particularly to the point is the end of Clark's book where he critically examines the departure of the vast majority of Reformed denominations and churches from the regulative principle of worship. His focus is the sabbath and the refusal of Reformed congregations and denominations to have two services on Sunday, the first being focused on the exegetical preaching from the Bible and the second being focusing on instruction from the Heidelberg Catechism so that God's people may understand the Reformed view of Scripture and doctrine. He advocates the exclusive singing of inspired psalms and hymns from the Old Testament and New Testament without music. According to the regulative principle of worship only that which is prescribed by Scripture is to be allowed for the liturgy and worship. For that reason, Clark advocates that no musical instruments be used in worship as well, despite the fact that the Psalter includes instructions for the use of musical instruments. This seems to be inconsistent on the part of Clark since he violates his own precept here. Musical instruments are prescribed in Scripture. (Cf. Nehemiah 12:36; Psalm 7:13; 68:25; 87:7; Psalm 150:4). It seems arbitrary on Clark's part to assign these instances and others to “circumstances” (pp. 230, 234, 239, 240, 263, 267-70, 290) in Scripture rather than to prescriptions, although I tend to agree with his view that uninspired songs and hymns should be avoided. (Pp. 233, 239, 255, 266, 268, 270, 290). The one place where I would disagree is the exclusion of Te Deum Laudamus and other ancient hymns of the church that were adapted by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer to the more biblical theology of the Reformation.

In fact, Clark even mentions the inspired songs used in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer without crediting the BCP with their use:

. . . If we keep in mind the principle that we may do only what we must do in public worship, then the argument for the use of uninspired songs cannot be said to have met that burden of proof.

Second, it has seemed to scholars of the New Testament that there are a number of songs in the New Testament. Among these are usually included the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), the Benedictus (Luke 1:68-79), and the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:29-32). [Page 271].

Unfortunately, Clark confuses common prayer with “forms”. He does not seem to realize that even the regulative principle of worship is a “form”. His criticism of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is therefore misplaced:

The preface to the DPW [A Directory for Publique Prayer] says that there were three reasons for the creation of the Directory: First, as beneficial as the Book of Common Prayer (hereafter BCP) was to the Reformation, nearly a century later, the BCP had become a tool of oppression rather than liberation. The “prevailing Prelatic party in England under Archbishop Laud was bent on strict conformity, and on extending it to Scotland.” The Prelatic party was, in the words of the DPW, “urging the reading of all the prayers” (emphasis added) so that “the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies” in it had become an occasion of “much mischief.” As a result of the imposition of the BCP, Christians were being kept from the table and ministers deprived of their living. The de iure divino Anglicans (e.g., Richard Hooker and Adrian Saravia) “have labored to raise the estimation of it to such a height, as if there were no other worship, or way of worship of God.” The second reason is that the BCP tended to give aid and comfort to the Roman critics of the Reformation as validating the mass. Third, it had the unintended consequence of fostering “an idle and un-edifying ministry.” Rather than giving themselves to prayer, ministers were relying on the forms. The Directory laid claim on being a continuation of the work of the “first reformers,” of whom “ we are persuaded, that, were they now alive, they would join with us in this work. (Pp. 249-250).

R. S. Clark ignores several points in the history of the English Reformation here. First of all, Cranmer's Prayer Book was solidly Reformed and Calvinistic, as the 1595 Lambeth Articles and the 1615 Irish Articles of Bishop Ussher indicate. Laud, on the other hand, was a high church Arminian and arguably in cahoots with the Jesuits as Augustus Toplady would later insist. Cranmer's 42 Articles are solidly reformed, in fact so much so that Matthew Parker edited and softened their rhetoric. Laud's Prayer Book of 1637 was not the product of the Elizabethan restoration but rather of a departure from the English Reformation under Cranmer, although the book had only minor revisions.  The official prayer book is the 1662 BCP which is virtually identical to the 1552 BCP, which is the most reformed prayer book.

Like most modern Presbyterians Clark largely ignores the Calvinist character of the English Reformation. The genius of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was in adopting the medieval principle of lex orandi, lex credendi into the forms of common prayer in order to teach the Evangelical faith and justification by faith alone through the application of sola Scriptura and solid biblical proof texts quoted in the liturgy. But Scott Clark seems to think that ad hoc prayers and extemporaneous prayer is somehow preferable to solidly biblical written prayers. But what check do we have on the solipsistic emphasis of individual opinions over against a more confessional adherence to common prayer? After all, the Anglican Formularies are a confessional standard which teach doctrine. The 39 Articles of Religion interpret the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and both are confessional standards for the Church of England, along with the Homilies. There is some question as to the proper listing of the homilies in book one, however.

What is even more surprising, given the presupposition behind the RPW (regulative principle of worship), is Clark's totally ignoring the issue of the proper administration of the two Gospel sacraments. The RPW advocates that nothing should be done which is not positively asserted in the text of Scripture. Therefore, the use of fermented wine and the use of the common cup and unleavened bread in communion should have been discussed. But only the issue of leavened and unleavened “commonly used bread” is mentioned (p. 236). The Bible explicitly calls for the use of wine and the common cup in the administration of the Lord's supper. This is demonstrated in the Westminster Confession as well:

The Lord Jesus hath, in his ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break bread, to take the cup and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation. (WCF 29:3) (Cf. Matthew 26:26, 27, 28; Mark 14:22, 23, 24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23, 24, 25, 26; WSC 96).

The use of grape juice is a modern innovation subsequent to Prohibition and was never the practice of the Reformed churches prior to that. I would also contend that the use of the common cup was the common practice of Reformed churches before modern times. For some reason Clark never mentions these issues, although he is a professor of historical theology. It would seem from a preliminary examination that Clark is highly selective in what he considers the historical practice and confessional view of the Reformed denominations.

The most troublesome thesis of Clark's book, however, is his assertion that Van Til's theology of analogy of Scripture is virtually identical to that of the classical Reformed theologians who advocated the creature/Creator distinction and the archetypal/ectypal distinction. Clark fails to prove his case that this is so. Basically, he simply makes an a fortiori assertion and expects his readers to believe secondhand sources rather than proving his case from the original sources. My response is that Clark is welcome to his opinion but reading Van Tilian theology into the Reformation is as revisionist as Karl Barth's claim to be Reformed.

Especially problematic with the Van Tilian view of Scripture is the contention that Scripture is not univocally the very word of God. The practical result of this de-emphasis of Scripture as the verbal-plenary and inspired word is that inerrancy and infallibility are practically forgotten. Doctrine is downplayed in favor of a mystical emphasis on the sacraments as means of grace to the point that propositional truth claims are lost in the mire of paradox and irrationalism.

For R. S. Clark only by analogy and not by logic is there any revelation from God:

. . . even those in the Reformed confessional tradition who rejected the modernist translation project have also wrestled with the proper way to do theology after modernity. Some confessionalists carried on the classic approach to theology, but we have often seemed to forget gradually our own grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Confessional Reformed theology, however, works with some basic beliefs about the nature of relations between God and his creation, beliefs that are derived from Scripture and shape theological method. Chief among these is the notion that God is the “beginning of being” (principium essendi) and, as such, the “beginning of knowing” (principium cognoscendi). A corollary to this doctrine is the notion that human knowledge of God is analogical. (P. 123).

For R. S. Clark the divine image of God in man is not the intellect or the will or even the human nature or soul, but it is merely an analogical relationship. However, the Bible seems to indicate that the divine image and likeness has to do with the revealed attributes of God (John 4:24). That is, God is a sentient, moral, intellectual being who is an actual personal God revealed as three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 13:14). However limited our understanding of God's nature and being, we do have real knowledge of God as He reveals Himself in the special revelation of Holy Scripture and the very words of God. As we read Scripture we can know precisely what God thinks on certain issues of theology. The Bible does make claims to absolute truth in matters of faith, morality, and dogmatic doctrine in the form of a rational revelation in Holy Scripture.  If there is any error the error lies with the sinful creature who cannot always understand what is clearly revealed due to the noetic effects of sin (2 Peter 3:15-16). Scripture itself is plain and sufficient so that even a child can understand the Gospel and be saved, even if reading only the Old Testament Scriptures! (2 Timothy 3:15). The Reformed position is called the perspecuity of Scripture, not the paradox of Scripture!  Why Van Tilians insist that Scripture is not God's very Word but only analogous to God's thoughts and words is a mystery. They pretend to disagree with the neo-orthodox view but in the end agree with it. If the incomprehensibility of God extends even to the special revelation of Holy Scripture such that it is not univocally God's word then there is no revelation at all. What is left is mere mystery and paradox and equivocation. This is why you do not see the Van Tilians talk much about the verbal plenary inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. It is because they do not really believe it is possible for God to reveal Himself in every single word of Scripture. For them revelation is merely historical events with vague concessions to the propositions attached to the events.  The "concepts" of Scripture are inspired and exactly what these concepts are is vague for the Van Tilian, because they only approximate what God wants us to know rather than being univocally exactly what God reveals to us on the human level.  For the Scripturalist, on the other hand, what we know is what God knows, even if what we know is only a single proposition and not an exhaustive knowledge of God's being or nature.

Although it is true that the Old Testament speaks in terms of typology and foreshadows of the coming of Christ, it is not true that the cross is merely a symbol or a type or an analogy. The cross is not simply an event. The cross is in particular a propositional doctrine that asserts particular dogmatic doctrines that are essential for saving faith. Basically, the doctrine of the cross is loaded with theological propositions such that to explain and teach them all would take many years of expositional preaching and teaching. The idea that everything God says in the Bible is merely a type, a metaphor, or an analogy is a misrepresentation of the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  In fact, R. S. Clark's view opens the door to modernism, irrationalism, and doctrinal revisionism. Moreover, the various genres of Scripture show clearly that the Bible is not a book of metaphors and analogies but contains a variety of genres of literature, including gospel, wisdom, poetry, apocalyptic, parable, historical narrative, didactic, and doctrinal materials. All of these genres, however, have behind them propositional teaching that can be understood with the mind and the intellect. In turn, assent to these doctrines, or believing them, is essential to saving faith. There is no need for a mystical encounter with some gnostic spoken word or a magical emphasis on word and sacrament. The mystical union with Christ is based on faith or believing the intellectual content of the doctrines of the Bible. Without understanding the propositional truth claims made by the Bible it is impossible to know them or assent to them or believe them. Faith is just that simple.  To know the information of the Bible and understand it makes it possible to believe that information and assent to the content of that message in saving faith.  The Van Tilian theology, on the other hand, has more in common with existentialist categories which make revelation impossible, ambiguous, and mystical. 
 

Clark's book is a misnomer because he rejects the very propositional truth claims of Scripture which are systematically summarized in the Reformed confessions. In fact, along with the modernists he suggests simply writing a new confessional standard that deals with the postmodern situation—as if truth changes with culture? If that is so, then we should probably reject the Bible as well, since it is virtually a premodern book and out of touch with modern sensibilities.

While I agree with R. S. Clark's assessment of the first and second Great Awakenings and even of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield's wrong emphasis on experience and the so-called “quest for illegitimate religious experience” (QIRE), it seems to me that R. Scott Clark's view of propositional truth as the “quest for illegitimate religious certainty” (QIRC) is nothing more than an attack on Scripture itself.  Instead, Clark affirms skepticism.  His view is an affirmation of an illegimate religious uncertainty (QIRU), ambiguity, relativism, subjectivism, and an outright denial of special revelation in the fully inspired Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. Being that R. Scott Clark came from a Socinian background, it should be no surprise that he leans toward neo-orthodoxy and a bifurcation of truth into relative obscurity.

Charlie J. Ray

A Note to My Readers

I have been reading several books over the past few months, include Cornelius Van Til's critique of Karl Barth and a couple of volumes from the works of Gordon H. Clark. I plan to do a review of those books soon.

I have also planned to do a review of Alister McGrath's book on the King James Bible and how that relates to the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These two fine English works have had an impact well beyond England to the rest of the world even down to the present time.

In addition, I just received in the mail a copy of Recovering the Reformed Confession, R. Scott Clark, and Mike Horton's new systematic theology. I am planning to review both of those works as well. Clark's book was written in 2008 but is just as relevant today as when it was written. This is particularly true for Anglicans who are concerned to reform the Anglican Communion in line with the original vision of English reformers like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and those who followed after. The Parker Society is an excellent resource for such studies.

At this point it looks as if those of us in the sideline denominations, as R. Scott Clark put it so eloquently, have little to no influence in the mainline and borderline Reformed denominations. As bad as the situation looks in the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominations the situation is even worse in the Anglican Communion. Anglo-Catholicism rather than Evangelical and Reformed theology predominates with few exceptions--perhaps the Church Society in England and the Sydney Anglicans of Australia remain vigilant against the encroachment of liberalism and Tractarianism--but over all the situation looks bleak. The Global South is probably more Evangelical than Tractarian but even there the encroachment of Anglo-Papist theology has made major inroads.

The future of the Gospel depends on the sovereignty of God first and foremost. Be that as it may, we as Reformed believers are called to teach and preach the doctrines of grace and to reform our congregations and denominations according to the precepts and doctrines of God's Word. God alone is able to bring success to our efforts since He is sovereign over all. (Psalm 115:3).

Lambeth Articles of 1595

The Lambeth Articles (1595)

The Lambeth Articles were drawn up by Dr. William Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, with input from Dr. Richard Fletcher (Bishop of London), Dr. Richard Vaughan (Bishop-elect of Bangor) and Humphrey Tyndall (Dean of Ely). They were formally approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. John Whitgift), the Archbishop of York (Dr. Matthew Hutton), the Bishop of London (Dr. Richard Fletcher), the Bishop-elect of Bangor (Dr. Richard Vaughan), and other prelates convened at Lambeth Palace, London (20 November, 1595) whose intent was that they be not new laws and decrees, but rather an explanation of certain points already established by the 39 Articles, particularly its soteriology. This view, that they represented a compromise, is not the majority view today. Rather, the majority view is that they represented an extreme Calvinist view that served only to promote argument. See Article.

Although the Lambeth Articles were never formally added to the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), they were accepted by the Dublin Convocation of 1615 and engrafted on the Irish Articles (1615), which are believed to have been largely the work of James Ussher, who was to become Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland (1625-1656). In the Church of Ireland, the Lambeth Articles obtained for some time a semi-symbolical authority. It is stated that they were exhibited at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) by the English deputies, as the judgment of the Church of England on the Arminian controversy.

Sadly, today, in most Anglican churches around the world, the Lambeth Articles are either unknown or rejected. Even before 1595 the soteriology of the Church of England had begun to drift away from Calvinism, and in the years to follow the falling away would become ever more pronounced, eventually resulting in the rejection not only of the predestinarian views of the Lambeth Articles but also of those in the 39 Articles, and their replacement by the works-righteousness and free-will views of Roman Catholics and Wesleyans.

One suspects that the Lambeth Articles of 1595 were drawn up in expectation of Anglicanism's doctrinal difficulties that were yet to come, and in hopes that they might be avoided.

The Lambeth Articles (1595)

1.  God from eternity has predestined some men to life, and reprobated some to death.

2.  The moving or efficient cause of predestination to life is not the foreseeing of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of anything innate in the person of the predestined, but only the will of the good pleasure of God.

3.  There is a determined and certain number of predestined, which cannot be increased or diminished.

4.  Those not predestined to salvation are inevitably condemned on account of their sins.

5.  A true, lively and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is not lost nor does it pass away either totally or finally in the elect.

6.  The truly faithful man—that is, one endowed with justifying faith—is sure by full assurance of faith ("plerophoria fidei") of the remission of sins and his eternal salvation through Christ.

7.  Saving grace is not granted, is not made common, is not ceded to all men, by which they might be saved, if they wish.

8.  No one can come to Christ unless it be granted to him, and unless the Father draws him: and all men are not drawn by the Father to come to the Son.

9.  It is not in the will or power of each and every man to be saved.


See:  Creeds of Christendom:  Lambeth Articles 1595:

It is stated that they were exhibited at the Synod of Dort by the English deputies, as the judgment of their Church on the Arminian controversy. But the anti-Calvinistic reaction under the Stuarts gradually deprived them of their force in England, while in Ireland they obtained for some time a semi-symbolical authority.-- Phillip Schaff

See also:  Lambeth Articles 1595

How Far Has the Presbyterian Church in America Fallen?

"In the first place many men want peace at any price.  They automatically flee from trouble.  With them it is virtually a principle to never oppose anyone.  In contrast, Athanasius  is honored because he stood firmly against something.  For this reason his epitaph, engraved on the soul of history, reads Athanasius contra mundum."  Gordon H. Clark, The Trinity.  (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1985) p. 20.

Contra mundum means "against the world".

How Far Has the Presbyterian Church in America Fallen?

by Charlie J. Ray


I recently moved back to my hometown in Bowling Green, Florida.  As a Reformed Anglican, I immediately began looking for a good Reformed church.  Since most Anglican churches or Episcopal churches are either charismatic, Anglo-Catholic, or liberal or some combination of the three there is little choice for the Anglo-Reformed person except to seek refuge in a Reformed church of some other denomination.  Unfortunately in many small southern towns there are few choices.  As far as I know the only Reformed church in Wauchula, which is the county seat and about five miles away, is a small church in the Presbyterian Church in America, namely Faith Presbyterian Church.  The only other option is an Associate Reformed Presbyterian church in Bartow, Florida, which is around 20 miles from here in Polk County, Florida.

The only option for a Reformed person--particularly disaffected Reformed Anglicans--here is to seek refuge in another Reformed denomination.  That usually means a Presbyterian church or a Dutch Reformed church if possible.  The Reformed Baptist option is a distant third option.


The only calvinistic Baptists in our area are the Primitive Baptist denominations.  Since my late maternal grandfather was a Primitive Baptist I investigated out of curiosity.  Unfortunately, what I found was an extreme anti-intellectualism and a lack of theologically trained ministers.  The Mount Enon Primitive Baptist Association of Florida actually has a fairly good doctrinal statement in The Articles of Faith.  The problem is I found that most of its ministers, being lay ministers, are taught orally with not much reading other than the Bible itself.  Several of the ministers told me that in other areas of the world where the Gospel has not been preached that God sovereignly elects and many of them will be saved.  (See Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XVIII).  This is inherently a form of universalism and outright denies that God has appointed the means of saving His elect through the preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments or "ordinances" if you prefer the Baptist term.  Primitive Baptists do not believe in evangelism, missions, Sunday school or Christian education of any kind.  That would explain why the denomination remains just a handful of people and seems to be a dying religion.  In fact, if you find fifteen or twenty people show up for church it is usually because they are a migrating congregation.  What I mean by that is the people, like the pastors, itinerate from one church to another on given Sundays.  Payne's Creek Primitive Baptist Church meets on the third Sunday of the month and Corinth Primitive Baptist meets on the first Sunday.  Both of these churches are near my home.  When I visited I found some of the folks there had driven from St. Petersburg, Lakeland, Ocala, Okeechobee and others were local.  This gives the illusion of life but given the sparsity of churches and the great distance between them it shows that the Primitive Baptist denomination is virtually on the edge of dying out, judging from what I have observed in the Mount Enon Primitive Baptist Association.  (See Primitive Baptist churches in Florida).  So it would appear that the Primitive Baptists are not a viable option either, although the Primitive Baptists do use wine for communion.  That would mean that they do properly administer the sacrament.

The only other option for disaffected Reformed Anglicans or Reformed Episcopalians is Peace Valley Lutheran Church, Wauchula, Florida, which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.  I enjoyed taking communion with the Lutherans since their observance of the Lord's Supper most closely resembles the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  In fact, I might need to find out when they regularly have communion since the PCA here does not properly administer the sacrament.  I say that because the Presbyterians here, following the Methodists, use grape juice rather than wine and wine is obviously the biblical precedent for the elements:  bread and wine.

The local Episcopal Church USA or The Episcopal Church is St. Ann's Episcopal Church and is basically a mission church served by a retired chaplain, Jim McConnell, who itinerates between five mission churches.  He is also extremely Anglo-Catholic complete with bells and smells and all the popery that comes with that package.

I have been somewhat regularly attending Faith Presbyterian Church because I attended there as a pre-teen when the pastor was  Russ Toms, who guided the congregation during the controversy over women's ordination in the mid 1970s.  The church eventually split, giving up its property rights to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, now known as the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  You can read a brief history of the formation of the church on the Genealogy web, Faith Presbyterian Church.  Rev. Toms is now with the Lord but his wife still attends at Faith Presbyterian.

The current pastor is Brook Larrison (1995-present), who converted from the Christian Missionary Alliance to the PCA because he became more Reformed in his theology.  Unfortunately, the congregation today is aging with only one or two young families.  The congregation is maybe a quarter of the size it was under the leadership of Reverend Toms in the mid-1970s.

I found several things that I personally disliked just walking in the door.  First of all, the worship service is low church for even a Presbyterian congregation--although in Reformed Anglicanism Evangelicals are low church without rejecting the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in worship or the more Reformed vestments of the Ornaments Rubric of Edward VI's second year.  I say this because during worship, although many hymns are sung,  there is a period where there is about 5 minutes wasted while the congregation sits to hear a pre-recorded "pop" contemporary Christian song played over the public address audio system.  The theology of these kinds of songs is often questionable for one thing.  The other objection I have is why is the congregation sitting passively instead of being involved in the liturgy at this point?  The other observation I made was that the hymnal was not the Trinity Hymnal or any other distinctively Reformed hymn book but something more broadly Evangelical.

On the positive side there is a congregational confession of sin and a reciting of either the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.  The confession of sin is actually taken from the Morning Prayer service from the 1662 on about every other Sunday.  The other Sundays an ad hoc confession of sin is built using random Scriptures.  There is no lectionary followed, however.  This means that there is no reading from the Psalter, often no Old Testament text, no reading from the Epistles or the Gospel unless it is a short pericope for the topical sermon.  The sermons are generally thirty minutes in length and often contain mostly law, though there are gospel references thrown in.  But the familiar pattern of law-gospel becomes gospel-law or even mostly law I've noticed.  The solution seems to be more law rather than more gospel for Rev. Larrison.

Although Rev. Larrison's sermons are fairly Reformed, I've noticed that many of his sermons are topical rather strictly expositional.  He also deviates into the political realm and what I would call reconstructionist themes, although I am unsure whether or not he would consider himself a reconstructionist.  I would love to hear him preach through a book of the Bible but that does not appear to be part of his preaching plan.

My main objection so far, however, occurred in last Sunday's adult Sunday school class.  The regular teacher is Doc Helveston, a former Reformed Baptist.  Saturday night Doc had a severe stroke and was unable to teach so the pastor, Brook Larrison took over.  This was to be the first Sunday of covering new material, which was to be a class on the cult utilizing Ruth Tucker's book, Another Gospel.  During the discussion, Brook explained the marks of a cult as believing in special revelation apart from the Bible, hyper-authoritarianism, extreme peer pressure and "mind control", etc.  But as he was explaining that Christian denominations are within the realm of orthodox Christianity he made the following blunder:  he said that what constitutes an orthodox Christian church is adhering to the three ecumenical creeds.   Now on the surface this sounds great.  But on deeper reflection it really means that Scripture is not the final authority but rather the creeds take the forefront.

So I pressed the issue and asked, "But what about Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox?  Are they Christians?" 

To which Brook responded, "Yes, they are."

So being the pig-headed fundamentalist I am, I said, "Well, I fail to see how anyone could be genuinely Christian who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church and believes what that church teaches.  They teach false doctrine like works righteousness, prayers to the saints and Mary, that tradition is equal to Scripture and is special revelation from God, etc."

Brook responded, "But they do believe in Jesus and I would not want to judge who is saved and who is not.  Although I agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church has teachings that we do not agree with I cannot say that Roman Catholics are not Christians."

My response was, "Well, we can argue from here to eternity about whether or not individuals in the Roman Catholic Church are saved.  But the fact is the Westminster Confession of 1647 called the Roman Catholic Church a 'synagogue of satan' and the pope was called an "antichrist".  I don't see how someone can believe in Jesus if they are being taught false doctrine week after week.  A truly born again Christian would leave the Roman Catholic Church and look for a true church that preaches the Gospel.  The definition of a true church according to the magisterial Reformers is a congregation where the Gospel is rightly preached and where the sacraments are rightly administered.  The Roman Catholic Church fails on both counts since it preaches salvation by works and administers seven sacraments in a sacerdotal system."  [Those are not the exact words but a rendering of them as I remember it unfolding].

Actually, this issue goes all the way back to Charles Hodge of the Old Princeton Seminary who challenged his Presbyterian denomination when it ruled that baptism in the Roman Catholic Church was invalid because it was improperly administered and because the Roman Catholic Church is essentially preaching another gospel.  The legacy of Hodge and his adherence to common grace has led to the current state of apostasy at Princeton Seminary and the Presbyterian Church USA.  Hodge's view was that Roman Catholics are indeed "Christians" at least in a secondary sense, although one gets the impression that Hodge thought that Roman Catholics were not in need of conversion and were "saved".

Unfortunately these days co-belligerency has led many Evangelicals and even Reformed persons to accept the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy as legitimate churches simply because they affirm the creeds.  But this ignores the fact that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are semi-pelagian on soteriological issues, including rejecting Augustinianism and the doctrine by which a church stands or falls, justification by faith alone.  While most Protestant denominations, including the semi-pelagian Arminian Wesleyans, still accept the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the other four solas--grace alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, and all glory to God alone--Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox reject all five solas and instead practice idolatry, preach salvation by works, and make tradition special revelation equal with Scripture, etc.  Roman Catholics go even further and say that the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth. 

The Reformed response in the 16th century was to say that impure churches which mixed faith with works were "synagogues of satan" and that the pope was an "antichrist":

4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.1 And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Rom. 11:3,4; Rev. 12:6,14

2 Rev. 2 and 3 throughout; 1 Cor. 5:6,7

5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;1 and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.2 Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will.3

See also: WLC 61


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 Cor. 13:12; Rev. 2 and 3; Matt. 13:24-30,47

2 Rev. 18:2; Rom. 11:18-22

3 Matt. 16:18; Ps. 72:17; Ps. 102:28; Matt. 28:19,20

6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.1 Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; [but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.2 ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22

2 Matt. 23:8-10; 2 Thess. 2:3,4,8,9; Rev. 13:6   [From Westminster Confession, Chapter 19:  Of the Church.]

What is a true church anyway?  The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion  states the doctrine clearly and succinctly:

Article XIX
Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.  (See Article XIX).

Rev. Larrison's response is just further evidence of the decline in the knowledge and teaching of the Reformed standards.  His view seems to be to not make waves and not to teach the Westminster Standards or make an issue of them lest any potential new member be offended, particularly if they happen to be Arminian.   However, his broad evangelical strategy does not seem to be working since the membership of the church is dwindling.  In fact a couple of young families left since I have been visiting in the past few years when I came home to visit relatives.

I have to wonder why Presbyterians are ashamed of being distinctly Reformed and why they are downplaying their own doctrinal standards?  The Presbyterian Church in Wauchula was once a thriving church when its ministers preached expository sermons and focused on teaching people the Reformed faith.  But when latitudinarianism sets in via the reconstructionist co-belligerency mindset, then the gospel gets lost in postmillennialist optimism for political change.  Whatever happened to the two kingdom theology of the Presbyterian churches?  Documents like the Manhattan Declaration and Evangelicals and Catholics Together have brought in liberalism, latitudinarianism, and compromise of the gospel and the doctrines of grace.  Although conservatives see this as fighting the culture war against political liberalism they have unwittingly sold out the gospel to law, relativism, and cultural accommodation--something they "think" they are opposing!  Perhaps more folks ought to read Mike Horton's book, Christless Christianity?

I have been criticized for being too narrow and pig-headed.  But remember that the church which stands for nothing will fall for anything.  I do consider myself a "neo-fundamentalist" and Anglo-Reformed.  However, I do not reject theological education and I'm certainly not anti-intellectual.  The current state of a broader orthodoxy in Evangelicalism has for all practical purposes tried to erase the Protestant Reformation and remove the anathemas of Council of Trent and other Roman Catholic denunciations of Protestants as "heretics".  But the fact remains that the great divide between Rome and Geneva/Wittenberg/Canterbury still exists today.  Those who ignore it do so at the peril of their own souls and the souls of those who are under their pastoral oversight and care.  Latitudinarian tendencies are an incipient form of theological liberalism and relativism and ultimately lead to the apostasy of individuals and of the denominations of which they are members.

While I am not saying that I would not recommend Faith Presbyterian Church, Wauchula, Florida, I am saying that the church is in shambles if judged by the Reformed standards.  The true congregation ought to be continually reforming itself and part of that reformation is being distinctively and unashamedly Reformed and unwilling to compromise those distinctives merely to "appear" acceptable to the local Arminian churches and/or visitors.  It is not the minister's place to keep the people ignorant but to instruct them.  Catechesis and expository preaching are essential to a healthy and growing church both in the spiritual and in the numerical side of growth.  I would hope that more people would be brought to understand the doctrines of grace.  Bringing more Arminians to attend a church so it can be just another church that stands for nothing does not further the gospel or the Reformed understanding of the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace accomplishes little more than leavening a Reformed church with semi-pelagian mermbers who will inevitably undermine the Reformed faith and the Protestant Reformation.  It has been my observation that churches which grow are churches that boldly preach the law and gospel in proper balance and perspective, not churches which warble on the fundamentals of the Reformed faith.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie

May the peace of the Lord be with you!

--

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer

YouTube - R. Scott Clark's Attack On Reformed Theology

YouTube - R. Scott Clark's Attack On Reformed Theology

In this video Monty Collier points out a problem with R. Scott Clark's over-emphasis on the ordinary means of grace, being of course administered through the local church. Although there are only two sacraments (Mark 16:16; Matthew 28:18-20; , the Reformed position places the preaching of the Gospel at the center of the service, not the administration of the Lord's Supper. That would include Reformed Anglican theology since Archbishop Thomas Cranmer emphasized the reading of Scripture as a means of grace. (See Ashley Null comments on Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's contribution to the English Reformation). While I agree with Collier that Scott is over-stating the case, it is true that Reformed churches and congregations are marked by church discipline. God can and does work outside the ordinary means of grace in saving the elect. However, if we go too far in the other direction, there is the problem raised by universalism. If God does not use the means of grace to effectually call the elect (John 6:37-39, 44, 65), then it follows that we do not need to send out missionaries to the unconverted people groups all around the globe (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8).

I ran across this position in reading Zwingli's article on eternal election. Some theologians like the late Philip Schaff and the still living Roger Nicole have said that God saves the elect apart from the means of grace such as unbaptized infants of non-Christian parents around the world. Others, like Billy Graham, have proposed that some individuals believe in Jesus Christ in some unconscious capacity and are therefore "saved" by Arminian standards. There are examples in Scripture such as Abraham where God does save His elect by a direct call. But the appointed means of grace today is revealed through Holy Scripture, of which Abraham had no access. (See 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Romans 1:16-17).

In this case I have to agree with R. Scott Clark that the ordinary or appointed means of grace are mediated through the local congregation. Otherwise we wind up with lay persons who go solo and invent their own doctrinal standards, often leading to the formation of cults. Sola Scriptura does not mean that Christians are free to roam about without joining a local church.

On the other hand, I agree with Monty Collier's point as well. What does one do when there is no local church with which one can in good conscience join in mission? Frequently local churches do not properly administer the two sacraments, follow a Reformed confession of faith, preach the doctrines of grace faithfully, or properly distinguish between law and Gospel. In such cases the Reformed believer is left in a quandary.

The Reformed Anglican position is that the preaching of the Gospel is the normative way God effectually calls and saves His elect:

Article XVIII

Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

We ought to remember that the majority of the Reformed confessions do uphold the idea that the local congregation is the means or instrument through which God mediates His graces to His elect:

Article XIX

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

The Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession have similar articles: WCF, Chapter 25, Of the Church. BC, Article 27, Of the Catholic Church. The short answer is that Monty Collier makes a valid point that God is not limited to the ordinary means of grace. However, Collier seems to misrepresent R. Scott Clark by taking his comments out of the context of the Reformed confessions.

Collier is a Clarkian in his Reformed theology and apologetics and therefore places less emphasis on faithfulness to the secondary authority of the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Gordon H. Clark has been accused of denying the doctrine of the one person of Christ in his final book, The Incarnation. Ironically, Clark's Scripturalism has been misused as a form of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism among his modern day followers, a fact that probably would have appalled Clark himself. While The Trinity Foundation makes many valid criticisms of modern Reformed theology, Trinity itself is promoting a rebellion against the Reformed confessions on the point of the incarnation since all of them uphold the Definition of Chalcedon 451 A.D.

I should add that Collier seems to be ignorant of the Dutch Reformed confession of faith called the Belgic Confession.  Article 28, Of the Communion of the Saints in the True Church says:

We believe, since this holy assembly and congregation is the assembly of the redeemed and there is no salvation outside of it,[1] that no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, no matter what his status or standing may be. But all and everyone are obliged to join it and unite with it,[2] maintaining the unity of the church. They must submit themselves to its instruction and discipline,[3] bend their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ,[4] and serve the edification of the brothers and sisters,[5] according to the talents which God has given them as members of the same body.[6]

 

To observe this more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate from those who do not belong to the church[7] and to join this assembly[8] wherever God has established it. They should do so even though the rulers and edicts of princes were against it, and death or physical punishment might follow.[9]

 

All therefore who draw away from the church or fail to join it act contrary to the ordinance of God.

[1] Mt 16:18, 19; Acts 2:47; Gal 4:26; Eph 5:25-27; Heb 2:11, 12; Heb 12:23. [2] 2 Chron 30:8; Jn 17:21; Col 3:15. [3] Heb 13:17. [4] Mt 11:28-30. [5] Eph 4:12. [6] 1 Cor 12:7, 27; Eph 4:16. [7] Num 16:23-26; Is 52:11, 12; Acts 2:40; Rom 16:17; Rev 18:4. [8] Ps 122:1; Is 2:3; Heb 10:25. [9] Acts 4:19, 20.

The short of it is that Monty Collier seems to be ignorant of Reformed theology in the bigger picture.  The Westminster Confession of Faith says the same thing as the Belgic Confession:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25:2 WCS)

May the peace of God be with all who confess faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in Holy Scripture.

 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Romans 16:20 ESV)

[R. Scott Clark is not advocating Roman Catholic doctrine when he says that salvation only comes through the local church that is true to the Gospel.  The Roman doctrine is that Rome is the only true church and that Rome is the seat of authority over all the Roman Catholic churches and is the only universal and true church.  Obviously that is wrong.]