This blog suggests yes. As 1/2 of the alleged Clark-Horton “controversy” the answer is…wait for it…NO!
I agree entirely with Michael in the sense that he’s using “conditions.” I’ve defended that sense of “conditions” myself. If you would read the other things I’ve written on conditionality and the covenant you would see that. See, e.g., the last two chapters in my book on Olevian. See the stuff on the fv/npp page.
What I reject in this very brief, popular intro to the FV controversy is the sort of conditionality proposed by the FV, i.e. we are in by grace and stay on condition of faithfulness.
Yes, there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of works, but we are justified unconditionally. Jesus met the conditions of the covenant of works for us. We who believe are in a covenant of grace, not a covenant of works.
We can even speak improperly of a condition of justification, i.e. faith — receiving and resting in the finished work of Christ. Witsius warned that it’s better, however, to speak of faith as the sole instrument of justification.
You’re (the writer of this blog) not trying to give readers the impression that Horton supports the FV are you? If so, you’re quite mistaken! He’ll get quite a laugh out of this piece when I mention it to him about 45 minutes from now.
UPDATE: So we did talk about it before the taping of WHI tonight. As I said. There’s no “there” there.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 8, 2008 at 1:08 am
Ron Smith
Good show tonight Dr. Clark.
Just so you know who I am, I was the guy who asked the first question tonight about the reformed doctrine of vocation. I had only heard you speak once at a WSC sacrament conference a few years ago where you called FV men “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, so I confess that coupled with your blog writings turned me off to you a bit. But you definitely come off more positively in person, even as you said the kingdom of Christ is “doom and gloom” :). I was truly disappointed I didn’t have an opportunity to fellowship with you and Danny Hyde at the pub afterwards. Maybe some other time.
Now, to the topic at hand. Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware that you held the Covenant of Grace to be in any sense conditional. As I understood your FV summary, it seemed to me you rejected any covenantal conditions whatsoever.
But of course, you wouldn’t say that these covenantal conditions constitute “staying in by works”. So my question is, why does the sense in which the FV place conditions on the Covenant of Grace constitute “staying in by works” while the conditions you and Horton speak of do not? What is the distinction?
Grace and Peace in Christ.
March 8, 2008 at 9:32 am
R. Scott Clark
Ron,
Thanks for coming out! See I’m not such a mean old guy after all.
The comments I made at the first WSC faculty conference were made in the light of extensive reading of and interaction with the Federal Vision movement.
Let me explain my stance toward the FV. I don’t regard it as an open question to be discussed gently. This isn’t like the discussion about the logical order of the decrees or some other intra-Reformed, in-house discussion where good folk can agree to disagree. This is a life or death struggle. If the FV movement was allowed to fester it would destroy the Reformed Churches. Can’t happen? Go try to find a church in Asia Minor where the Seven Churches once were. (Okay, there’s a small congregation being planted by a WSC grad, but it’s been barren for centuries. The Lord did do what he threatened in the Revelation).
Am I confrontational toward and about the FV movement? Absolutely! I know it’s not popular and it’s not warm and fuzzy — not that you’re looking for that– but I don’t care. The FV boys really are wolves. They are waterless clouds etc. These are boys looking for a following. They’ve moved from one fad to another and now they are fiddling with the gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s anathema. They are wrecking churches and lives. I have dealt with the aftermath too many times to have any patience with them. Further, the OPC, the PCA, the RCUS, and the URCs have categorically rejected the FV. The discussion is over. Now it’s time for discipline.
Let me encourage you to read beyond that little introduction. I’ve written a lot more on covenant theology than just that little piece. I’ll revise that piece to make sure that I’m clear about how I’m using the word “condition” but there’s never been any question in Classic Reformed Theology whether there are conditions in the covenant of grace. Sometimes they are called stipulations. Sometimes they called conditions. I like to call them consequent obligations. Having been initiated into the covenant of grace believers are obligated to make profession of faith and they are obligated to come to the table and they are obligated to conduct themselves as those who’ve been redeemed. If they fail to meet these obligations, depending on the circumstances, they should be disciplined. These consequent obligations are part of the administration of the covenant of grace. What we cannot do is to create conditions that make the covenant of grace into a covenant of works.
This is what the FV boys do by their “conditions.” They have it that baptism makes one a covenant member (whereas the Reformed Churches say that baptism recognizes covenant membership) and they have it that we must do “our part” (obey the law, cooperate with grace) to retain what we have been given (i.e. union, election, justification, adoption etc). That’s not Reformed theology. Faith, in the act of justification is not “faithfulness” or “fidelity.”
I’ve documented this in the journal essay for the Confessional Presbyterian and in CJPM among other places. See also the work of Waters/Johnson eds and Guy Waters’ book contra the FV. I’ve already supplied a link. Read the “Brief History” of covenant Theology” linked on the FVNPP page.
As to “doom and gloom” that’s not quite what I said. I spoke about suffering. That’s not the same as “doom and gloom.” See this essay for a fuller account of my understanding of the biblical teaching on this. Mike has also written on this same theme here.
American Reformed folk have got to get over their triumphalism. God is sovereign. His kingdom is glorious but the idea of a glorious age on this earth is Anabaptist not Reformed. The idea of “transforming” the culture is not biblical, however widely held it may be.
Hope this helps.
March 8, 2008 at 10:10 am
Ron Smith
Dr. Clark,
I understood that you were speaking of suffering in this life (which the faithful must endure) when you said something to the effect, “People say I believe in ‘doom and gloom’, to which I respond, “Welcome to the Kingdom.” I got your point, though I wouldn’t phrase it that way, hence, the subsequent smiley :).
As to “the FV boys” and their conditions, I still have yet to see any substantive difference between what they are saying and what you’ve said. That was my main purpose of the original post on my blog.
They say, “we must do ‘our part’ (obey the law, cooperate with grace) to retain what we have been given.” You say that we are “obligated to make profession of faith and they are obligated to come to the table and [we] are obligated to conduct [our]selves as those who’ve been redeemed,” and if we don’t we “should be disciplined”, which, if culminating in excommunication, I would think would involve the loss of something. Would you agree that it would involve loss of standing in the covenant? And I agree in both scenarios, we stand by grace thorough faith, lest any man boast. We cannot meet any obligations, nor “do our part” unless God does His part in working in us to will and to do.
This is how the FV works itself out for me and the way I pastor my children. It is important to emphasize with my children that they have a covenant relationship with Jesus that must be preserved. But in order to tell them that, I have to actually believe it, don’t I? So I tell them that they are in a covenant relationship with Jesus by virtue of their baptism. Isn’t this consistent with historic Calvinism? Calvin’s Strasbourg Catechism asks,
But they “are obligated to make profession of faith and they are obligated to come to the table and they are obligated to conduct themselves as those who’ve been redeemed. If they fail to meet these obligations, depending on the circumstances, they should be disciplined.”
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with me a bit, Dr. Clark. I assume a man with your responsibilities is crazy busy, so truly appreciate it.
March 8, 2008 at 10:48 am
R. Scott Clark
Ron,
I can’t and won’t re-write in a com box all that I’ve written for the last 8 years. Second, with no disrespect intended to you personally, I’ve had lots of private conversations with folks who identify with the FV, and I’m thinking of a recent one, where the FV advocate has said, “But we really agree, if we just understood each other.” So this fellow will agree with the things we say in email and then I read other stuff later and they contradict everything we discussed privately. It’s an odd and inexplicable phenomenon.
I hope to God (literally) that you are not identifying with the FV and that you are not teaching your children (or anyone else) that you we in “the covenant” by grace and that we stay in by “fidelity.’ BTW, I noticed your blog name, very clever, but it sent up red flags immediately. Of course, so does your post. If you are entangled with the FV in any way I urge you to repent of it, flee to Christ and trust in his finished work alone for your salvation and justification. If you’re in a pro-FV congregation, you should flee to the safety of a true Reformed church immediately (see Belgic Confession Art 29).
We don’t remain in the covenant of grace by our fidelity. We are adopted into the covenant of grace by grace alone and we stay in by grace alone.
Your post seems to conflate the administration of the covenant of grace with the decree. There is a clear distinction in Reformed theology between the “substance” of the covenant of grace and the “administration” of the covenant of grace.
We don’t preserve the relationship with God. He creates it, he preserves it, despite our sin and rebellion against him.
The church simply acts ministerially to recognize, ultimately, whether there is faith or unbelief. If someone shows himself to be impenitent, we discipline him, we place him under the law and pray for his repentance. We recognize that the relation to Christ never existed. It’s not that was there and then it was lost but that it was never there in the first place.
The other thing your post ignores (as as the case with all FV theology) is the distinction which both Michael and I affirm and which all FVists deny, and that is the distinction between being in the covenant of grace externally and internally.
Thus we can point to our baptism but that’s only a synecdoche for the promise of the gospel that is received through faith alone. It is not received through baptism. Baptism doesn’t make it so. Grace makes it so and that benefits of Christ are received through faith alone (trusting, receiving, resting in Christ) not by our fidelity. Christ was faithful for me. The Spirit has granted faith to me. This is a crucial distinction.
I think I see now more clearly that, by ignoring these sorts of distinctions (chiefly the internal/external distinction) you are saw Mike’s language as opposed to mine when we’re talking about different things. Relative to the internal relation to the covenant of grace there are no conditions. Relative to the external aspect of or relation to the covenant of grace there can be said to be conditions or consequent obligations — that’s why I spoke about the administration of the covenant of grace.
As I say, I’ve written on this in the CPJ essay and in a booklet for the Reformed Fellowship. Please see those.
March 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ron Smith
Bad tag… trying again.
March 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ron Smith
I explain the blog title here: http://solafidelity.wordpress.com/about/
While I truly appreciate your concern for my soul and for the souls of others identifying with the FV, I sincerely believe that I have fled to Christ, and continually flee to Him, and I do trust in His finished work alone for my salvation and justification. I recognize that I have nothing that has not been given me. When I sin daily in thought, word and deed, I recognize that it is by God’s grace that I repent and have faith that my sins are forgiven in Christ.
I admit that it is possible that I am confused, which could be why I don’t see how this is antithetical to the FV, but I don’t see why that confusion would make you more concerned for my soul than you would be for your own. (And I mean that in all due respect to an elder in Christ’s Church. I realize that I am walking a fine line here and I do not want to move from discussion to an appearance of rebuke, which would not at all be my place.) I don’t get from scripture that the Church ought to have the attitude, “You are in, relax, you are safe, you cannot fall.” I get, “Hold fast, be careful, take heed, don’t make shipwreck of your faith.” But because I am a Calvinist, I have to reconcile those exhortations with the sovereignty of God, my inability to do anything apart from His grace, unconditional election, and the finished and particular redemptive work of Christ. I believe the FV is attempting to do this. I believe the WCF does this when it speaks of “the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation”. (WCF LC 153)
I had some more responses to what you have written here, but I think it would be better if I will take up your advice to read your CPJ essay. Perhaps we can discuss some more after I have done that. Thanks again.
March 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm
R. Scott Clark
Ron,
The Federal Vision theology isn’t a matter up for “discussion” as if the churches have not spoken. My federation spoke unequivocally at Synod Schereville. We’re done with the Federal Vision. We adopted Nine Points which reject the FV root and branch We adopted and re-affirmed our commitment to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and the definition of faith in Belgic 22 and 23 and the relations between justification and sanctification taught in BC 24.
The OPC has likewise published an extensive study of an thorough rejection of the FV. GA has received the report and advised presbyteries to examine candidates for ministry to prevent the introduction of the FV into the OPC.
The PCA has rejected the FV in Nine Points and the RCUS has rejected the FV.
The URC has a study committee working on a report to further explain the actions of Synod and the RPCNA has a study committee (which I expect to reject the FV).
If you haven’t read Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, for yourself, you should do. If you haven’t read the Waters/Johnson ed. volume you should do and if you haven’t read Guy Water’s critique of the FV you should do. There is a great lot of material at my WSC site.
March 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm
kazooless
Dr. Clark,
I was the second person to ask a question that night. Up front, I will disclose that I am NOT FV, like my very good friend Ron Smith, but I consider arminian theology a greater error than FV and am not willing to apply terms such as ‘fester’ toward our FV brethren.
Anyway, I want to respond to your comment above:
I am looking forward to the release of the tape, I hope they include the questions and answers. It was your answer to my question that you DID say “doom and gloom.” It was to the affect that you were saying your response to those that accuse you of preaching a “doom and gloom’ gospel is “Welcome to the Kingdom of God.”
I enjoy a good use of pejorative or polemical rhetoric, so I applaud you for applying titles that tend to automatically make the reader ‘agree’ with you. Titles such as “triumphalism” and “Anabaptist.” Bare naked assertions that transforming the culture is not biblical. But one could just as easily apply titles to your position. How about “retreatism” and “pietism.”
And HOW ON EARTH! do you attribute old fashioned postmillennialism theology (the idea of a glorious age on this earth) with the Anabaptist???? I know you’re a seminary professor and I’m just a lowly lay person, but that seems to me to be just a blatant statement of error.
Your answer that included the “doom and gloom” statement was what finally pushed me over the edge that night that I wrote a fairly strong polemical article that against your retreatist view that came across. I was just bad timing since it came right after the announcement about the radical judges here in California and what they said about homeschooling. You can find what I wrote (partly thanks to you) here: http://theonomist.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/enough-is-enough-the-church-needs-to-repent/
I know my language is strong, and I am speaking like Luther spoke to Erasmus, but I do write this as a brother in Christ speaking to another one of my brethren.
So, blessings on your head, here and now IN THIS LIFE, and in the life to come.
kazooless
March 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm
R. Scott Clark
Kazoo,
Well, perhaps I should say that relative to the sort of triumphalism represented by theonomy/reconstructionism and Anabaptist fanaticism — they wanted an earthly glory age and were repudiated by the Reformers for it — then Peter’s eschatology is “gloom and doom” but it isn’t so absolutely because I don’t regard heaven as a loss.
Sure I’m a reteatist, in contrast to American triumphalism (AT), because acc. to AT any view not “taking back x” for Jesus is retreatist. Go for it.
It is blessed to be identified with Jesus and to suffer with and for him. I really don’t believe that the AT-ists get that. That’s why Luther distinguished between a theology of glory and theology of the cross.
As to “postmillennialism,” well the fact is, as I understand things, that there wasn’t a terminological category for “amillennialism until early in the 20th century so many of the so-called Postmils weren’t. Warfield’s eschatology has little to do with the AT-ism.
Yes, there were a number of 17th-century orthodox who became chiliasts but that view dissolved through the 18th and 19th centuries.
The NT just doesn’t know anything about the church triumphing on this earth in this life before the return of Jesus. Sometimes things go better, sometimes they go worse, but the gospel always does its work by the power of the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell will not triumph against the church and the Son of God will always be with his church. If that’s “doom and gloom” then let’s have more of it.
March 9, 2008 at 8:40 pm
kazooless
Hi Dr. Clark,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I appreciate the charity with which you responded, even though you would have been justified to “come back at me” strongly. :)
Obviously we have disagreements and they’re not going to be resolved here on this thread, and I’m sure that’s okay with both of us. There are many things I agree with you on. It is a blessing to be identified with Christ and His sufferings. I don’t regard heaven as a loss either. I look very forward to it and it will be 1000 times better than here (1000 not being literal, of course).
You mention Luther much, and it makes me wonder if maybe you should identify yourself more as Lutheran instead of Reformed. I fellowship at New Life PCA in La Mesa and our pastor, Brian Tallman just posted on his blog a short paragraph about Luther’s 2 kingdom view, and how Calvin started in his early years with it, but matured past it in his later years. You can see that here.
Last point. You say:
That’s quite a statement to make, I think. But you’re in good company with the dispensationalists, I guess. I just don’t see support for it at all.
If we’re just pilgrims and things just go up and down but pretty much stay status quo, then what are these enemies that are being put under His feet BEFORE His return?
Again, many blessings upon your head, in this life, and the life to come.
Kazoo
March 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm
R. Scott Clark
K,
1. All confessional Reformed folk are Lutherans in certain respects. The widespread ignorance about the history of Reformed theology does not help us in this regard.
2. The Reformed taught the theology of the cross just as vigorously as Luther. Martin Bucer became was at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518 where Luther unveiled, as it were, the theology of the cross! Our churches in the Netherlands were known as the churches under the cross. See my book on Olevianus, the opening chapters for more. There’s been some good scholarly work on this theme in the history of Reformed churches in recent years.
3. If you want to know about Calvin and 2 Kingdoms see VanDrunen’s work. I’m sure the Rev Mr Talman is quite learned but David is doing very good scholarship on the history of the doctrine.
4. The doctrine of the 2 kingdoms allows, even demands, active civil participation but without expecting that we shall usher in a golden age. We are citizens of 2 kingdoms at the same time. We have different duties in each. One is eternal, hence Paul says that our citizenship is in heaven, and one is earthly and temporal. We’re not gnostics. We don’t deny the importance of the civil and earthly but we don’t confuse it with the heavenly and eternal.
There is a way between total disengagement/world flight and transformationalism. That way is to recognize that God has two kingdoms and Christians serve him in both.
March 10, 2008 at 5:10 am
Ron Smith
Dr. Clark,
On what basis ought we serve in the kingdom of men? And if we do serve, what ethic do we use to know how to serve?