A Few Heideljinks

Sharing Options

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Seth B.
Seth B.
8 years ago

Where’d you learn it from Murray!? I want to learn it too! =D

Joshua T
Joshua T
8 years ago

Shhh Doug. You know that any “debate” would only consist of two full readings of the WCF and Larger Catechism.

I agree with Seth, let’s get some Murray exposition soon!

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
8 years ago

Because I’m colored mostly Anglican and don’t have a dog in this ring, I’m seeing oddities on each side.  Seems like the OPCites try to keep the screws tightened on their club rules.  Their had more latitude because the sectarian approach was not yet so entrenched.  But enough about them.  Doug is who I care about.  I appreciate your bravery.  And I think you could and will lead us a little farther out of the camp.  One way?  This “preaching of the Gospel” can be defined as more than mere pulpit talkage.  Also, the first glorious covenant, beginning with the… Read more »

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
8 years ago

oops — meant “Their fathers had more latitude

JMT
JMT
8 years ago

Pastor Wilson, I find it humorous that you were able to bring R. Scott Clark and Rachel Held Evans together without so much as lifting a finger. It is likely that you are one of the few things they have in common. To misquote Shakespeare: Methinks they both protest too much. http://heidelblog.net/2013/10/a-response-to-rachel-held-evans-regarding-wilson-and-the-definition-of-reformed/

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
8 years ago

Don’t feel bad about being likened to Arminius, and so barred from their pulpits.  They feel they own those pulpits and you are not playing by their rules.  My local PCA leaders quote Spurgeon on one side, but when asked if they’d let him stand up there — big “Oh no.”

Camp Director
8 years ago

Doug, 
 
The obvious answer to your question is because it “wouldn’t be helpful.” It has become obvious recently that “wouldn’t be helpful” translates to “I can’t answer the argument.

Nathan Brunaugh
Nathan Brunaugh
8 years ago

If you click the link referenced in the post and read the comments on the original post from Dr. Clark, you will see a very entertaining exchange between him and a commenter on how he will absolutely, never, under any circumstances debate Pastor Wilson.   He even threatens to “turn-off” comments if the subject is broached again…because he means business!

David Nilsen
8 years ago

On the subject of debates, does anyone know of public debates (or just cordial dialogs) that have taken place in recent years between FV folk and OPC/URC folk?  Is there audio/video available?

David Nilsen
8 years ago

I’ve heard the dialog between Horton and Wilson at Canon Wired.  I was thinking something post-2007 if possible. 

Tim H
Tim H
8 years ago

Just curious, does “I will fly down there at my own expense”
mean at your personal expense, or that of your church/college/bookstore/etc.?
 

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
8 years ago

Just curious, TimH, are you a member of Pastor Wilson’s church or a financial supporter of or investor in  Canon Press or New St. Andrews College?

John Barach
8 years ago

Seth B., to answer your question: You’ll find John Murray’s discussion in his essay “The Church: Its Definition in Terms of ‘Visible’ and ‘Invisible’ Invalid,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:231-236.  I don’t recall offhand whether Murray uses the terms “historical” and “eschatological” church, but you can find them in Gary North’s Unconditional Surrender, p. 198: “We might use the words ‘historical church’ to describe all baptized, professing Christians, and ‘eschatological church’ or “final-day church’ to describe the assembled saints on the day of judgment.

John Barach
8 years ago

Perhaps one should add that the “historical church” and “eschatological church” goes back at least as far as Augustine (as this book indicates: http://tinyurl.com/lfoo5qh).