has written a short article calling attention to Clark's contentions, including this amazing statement:
We would discipline someone if they left our church and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments
Good thing Dr. Clark left that baptistic sect he used to belong to and discovered the true church. At least he was baptised with true Christian baptism before he left.
I don't believe that Dr. Clark considers Baptists to be damnably heretical, so I have to wonder how he reconciles the idea that he has that a person can be in the body of Christ and not a member of the true church. That is a strange idea to say the least.
Ironically, in another statement quoted by James White at the Alpha & Omega blog, Clark accuses Baptists of the same error:
As a consequence, we regard our children as Christians and as baptized persons. Baptists, of course, do not regard our children as Baptized persons nor do they regard those of us who've not been re-baptized as Baptized persons!
That's a huge matter. According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian. That's no small thing.
Evidentally Dr. Clark associates baptism with Christianity so closely that one can be saved and not a Christian. I am really confused about this one, but I can say for sure no Baptist would say that anyone is not a Christian because they havn't been baptised.
Note that in the same statement he admitts that he believes that his infant children are Christians simply be recieving infant baptism.
So in Clark's strange world one one can be unsaved and Christian, saved but not a member of the true church, saved but not a Christian.
Dr. Gonzales lists a few good links to discussions about Baptist use of the adjective "Reformed". I have a feeling this conversation is just getting warmed up.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment