"Baptism, Election, and the Covenant of Grace"

[R. Scott Clark]

You can pre-order copies here.

There's a little more info on the HB.

 

[BobVigneault]

Dr. Scott,
Can you give a quick blurb on how this booklet might help the layman who is trying to make heads or tails out of the NPP/FV wrangling going on? I'm assuming that's why this is being published. Thank you sir.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Bob,

It's similar to the piece published in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal vol 2.

You can see the first part here.

Yes, it's designed to help laymen sort out some of the basic questions in the FV controversy. It doesn't deal directly with the NPP, since that's a related but distinct set of issues.

Some stuff from the intro:

Over the last thirty years, considerable disagreement has arisen among the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian churches over what happens in baptism, what baptism promises, to whom and under what circumstances. The controversy has intensified in recent years with the rise of the self-described "Federal Vision" movement which says that baptism confers upon the baptized person a conditional, temporary election, union with Christ, justification, and adoption. As a shorthand, let us call these baptismal benefits. The Federal Vision also downplays or denies the distinction between the church considered as a visible or invisible entity or the distinction between an internal or external relation to the covenant of grace.

...According to the Federal Visionists, having been admitted to the covenant by grace (i.e., by baptism), a Christian is obligated to retain those benefits by cooperating with grace or faithfulness. This is how they define "faith," as trusting and obeying. Those who have faith so defined will retain the benefits given in baptism and will show themselves to have been really elect in the traditional sense of the word. Sometimes the Federal Visionists speak as if there are two kinds of election: the first is an eternal, unconditional election and the second is a historical, temporary, conditional election.

Sometimes, however, it is not clear that they really believe in two kinds of election. Certainly when they speak of election relative to "the covenant" (these writers do not much like the traditional Reformed distinctions between the covenants of redemption, works, and grace) they are most often speaking of the historical administration of what they consider a conditional, temporary election and covenant. Thus, frequently, these writers are not writing about the "the covenant" or "election" as we have traditionally conceived them. Most often they seem to be thinking of a covenant that is both gracious and legal simultaneously, before the fall and after it, in roughly the same way. To make their point they tend to emphasize the fact that our liturgical forms speak of covenants as having two parts.


This controversy raises the most profound questions for Reformed theology, piety, and practice. After all, the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield (1851—1921) called the doctrine of the covenant, "the architectonic principle" of Reformed theology, i.e., the thing on which it is built and Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) agreed.


Were the Federal Vision a movement outside the Reformed Churches, its rise and influence might not be so troubling. It is, however, not a movement that has grown up outside the Reformed churches, but within them. The proponents of this new view of baptism, covenant, and election wish to be regarded as confessionally Reformed.


This essay contends that the Federal Vision doctrine of baptismal benefits, their historical, conditional view of covenant and election, is contrary to the Word of God as confessed in the Reformed Churches and worthy of ecclesiastical discipline. In order to take a step toward clarifying the picture, this essay will briefly survey the major views taught in the various historic Christian churches, the teaching of Scripture, the teaching of the Reformed confessions and conclude by offering some pastoral considerations.

Dr. Scott,
Can you give a quick blurb on how this booklet might help the layman who is trying to make heads or tails out of the NPP/FV wrangling going on? I'm assuming that's why this is being published. Thank you sir.

 

[AV1611]

What is the premise of the book?

[EDIT: I see you provided this whilst I was composingmy post ]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

It's now in print and available from the Reformed Fellowship.

rsc

 

[Philip A]

Yes, it's designed to help laymen sort out some of the basic questions in the FV controversy. It doesn't deal directly with the NPP, since that's a related but distinct set of issues.

While the book addresses the FV issue directly, it should be noted that baptists ought not to read the book, unless they don't plan on being baptists for very long

 

[Semper Fidelis]

While the book addresses the FV issue directly, it should be noted that baptists ought not to read the book, unless they don't plan on being baptists for very long

 

[turmeric]

While the book addresses the FV issue directly, it should be noted that baptists ought not to read the book, unless they don't plan on being baptists for very long

Kill two birds with one stone! Economy of effort, I like it!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Rich wrote to ask about the link.

Yes, it's an email address to the office of the Reformed Fellowship. The secretary, Shellie Terpstra should be able to help you. They are also sending out two copies to every URC congregation.

Until we have some in our bookstore or they put it on the RF site, that's the best I can do.

Thanks,

rsc

 

[Sebastian Heck]

And who's sending a copy to us poor German Reformed folks in Old Europe???

 

[elnwood]

While the book addresses the FV issue directly, it should be noted that baptists ought not to read the book, unless they don't plan on being baptists for very long

I, too, laugh at that assertion!

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Sebastian,

Will send you a copy when I get some. I'm waiting for RF to send me a few.

Send your postal address to my work email please.

best,

S

And who's sending a copy to us poor German Reformed folks in Old Europe???