A friend wrote, drawing my attention to this and, with regard to the one statement of mine that the OPC report took issue with, asking me if I meant it. I would prefer to divide that into two questions — first, what did I mean by it, and second, did I mean it?
I can answer what I meant by it generally right now, but I am on the road right now and away from my books. When I get home I will post some context from the essay quoted to establish what I meant by it at the time.
But here is a general statement. At the moment of the effectual call (normally something that happens because of the preaching of the Word — as the OPC rightly notes), God’s gift of faith to an individual is what enables us to call him a worthy receiver. Without evangelical faith, there are no worthy receivers. If that worthy receiver had previously been baptized, the teaching of the Confession is that the grace represented by the baptism came to be exhibited and conferred at the moment of true conversion.
Second, Clark quotes this, and it was a bit rich, coming from him.
[The Arminians] “rejected the judgments of the Synod and refused to answer the points in question in an equitable fashion. No admonitions of the Synod, nor resolutions of the honorable deputies of the States General, nor even the illustrious members of the States General themselves could make progress with them.”
I forget how many times and how many ways I have offered to meet with Scott Clark. But let me reiterate. I will fly down there at my own expense, I will debate with him publicly, I will meet with him privately, and I will even buy a special membership card that will allow me to comment on his blog. If we are drawing historical parallels, the only one being coy here, and refusing to engage in a theological exchange is Clark. So here is the offer put another way. Why doesn’t Scott Clark do for me what he says here what the divines at Dort did for the Arminians, and see what happens?
And third, filed under “just sayin,” I note that Scott quoted this portion of the OPC church report on the FV.
“Foundational to FV ecclesiology is a tendency in FV to deny the inner/outer aspects of the covenant along with the visible/invisible aspects of the church.”
So, let me do two things here. First, I affirm the inner/outer aspects of the covenant, and I affirm the distinction between the visible/invisible church. But second, let me note that the R2K teaching, equating the two kingdoms of the Reformation with church and state actually poses more of a threat to the inner/outer distinction than anything I have said about the historical/eschatological church distinction (which I learned from John Murray, remember).
Anyhow, more later.