In the comments on this post over at his blog, Scott Clark threatened to cut off comments if people persisted in asking why he wouldn’t meet with me.
“Why is it curious that I should refuse to meet personally with the leading proponent of the corruption of the gospel?”
Well, it is curious because in the post just above these comments, Clark had made quite a point about how the Arminians would not meet with the men investigating their views. It is curious because all these Reformed bodies denounced “a thing” called Federal Vision, the characteristics of which thing I also denounce, and they did this without ever once meeting with me — despite my cheerful willingness to meet with any or all of them.
“This is not a personal matter. This is a matter of truth.”
That is correct. It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of truth. And Scott Clark persists in perpetuating palpable falsehoods, and will not allow the legitimacy of any venue where those falsehoods might be demonstrated to be such.
“His views are well known. I can read English.”
The blunt answer, which cannot really be softened, is “no, he cannot read English.” Let me take one example that Clark likes to use. He says that FV teaches that baptism puts everyone in a state of grace, which is then maintained by the believer through his own covenantal faithfulness. Is that not a fair summary of what Clark says I teach? Well, here is some English for Clark to read. I think that such a doctrine is bad juju. I believe that it would be what theologians of another era might call a lie from the pit of Hell. I hope that one day I might be privileged to soak this doctrine in lighter fluid and set a match to it. If I ever found this doctrine on a sheet of paper in my office somewhere, I would run it through the shredder. Prior to my weekly dump run, I search my house for any traces of this doctrine so that I might throw it in the back of my pick up truck in order to take it out to the landfill along with all the bottles, empty ice cream cartons, grapefruit rinds, and coffee grounds. So the next time you read Scott Clark saying that I teach some form of this, you should probably say to yourself, “Hmmm. No speekee.”
“Further, as I’ve explained many times, the churches (most particularly mine) have spoken. Did the Synod negotiate with Episcopius? No. They issued canons. So now, the churches have categorically rejected the FV. It’s a gross doctrinal error.”
These churches have not rejected the teachings of Douglas Wilson anywhere. They have denounced, as grievous error, a number of errors that I also denounce. Now what? It is as though Clark pointed out that all the NAPARC churches had solemnly denounced various baptistic errors which, Clark maintained, included me. This is why I want to arrange a meeting with him, with somebody bringing along a covenant child under the age of six months, so that I could baptize that baby with the cameras just a going.
If Scott Clark and I were to meet, in some place where there was genuine accountability, I have the highest confidence that I could demonstrate my faithfulness to the Westminster Confession to the satisfaction of virtually everyone in the room within the course of one meeting. And that is why I think Scott Clark doesn’t want to do it.
“I only want to hear these words: I repent of the federal vision errors (i.e., the entire program) and then I want to see evidence of repentance, dismantling of the empire, and submission to a real church and discipline for all the damage done (e.g., demission from the ministry) and reparation to all the victims.”
And he wants to see my house bullodzed so that the ground can be adequately salted. And all without a trial, or any opportunity to ask or answer any pesky questions! How utterly unlike the treatment of the Arminians by the stalwarts at Dort!