Banterin' with R. Scott Clark 

Keith, you have such a gracious and humble way of interacting with those who disagree with you.

R. Scott Clark messages me on Twitter every time I say something he slightly disagrees with. He's a brilliant scholar though and was my RUF minister's professor

I nominate YourCalvinist as the best intro on RU-vid

This was some great bantering! Thanks!

The intro song sounds like the guy fromLutheran satire.

Thanks Keith, you’re the man 👍 for the glory of God of course✝️

Great conversation (bantering) interview! You guys have caused me to want to dig deeper in study. So much to study but so little time 😢

Great convo! One thing that always bugs me with Clark (and I do listen to his podcast from time to time) is his inconsistencies. For instance, he shot down the idea of a "Christian Prince" (and rightly so), but then said if he were in charge, he'd clean up the streets? What? Not as a Christian? Or by what laws? The mist-like form of "natural law"... because those laws certainly aren't delineated in Scripture, right?... don't let you know how to "clean up the streets." As for his claims on Postmill. Turn the other cheek? One, I'm at a loss as to how that pokes a hole in Postmill thought. First, that's what ought to happen to the individual, yet the State has an obligation to ensure that the righteous are rewarded and the evil are punished. (But, again, based on some ghostly form of natural law that was certainly never laid out... and this natural law, if so easily understood by judicial bodies, why did it have to be spoken out loud?). The Postmill "Golden Age" hangs on one thing: The success of the gospel, in history, the here-and-now, in transforming hearts and minds, the law written on that new heart of flesh to obey God, as much as one struggles with his flesh (sanctification). To say that that can't happen is to say the gospel doesn't have the power to do what God says it can (and will) do. Plain and simple. To make that claim is to say God can't populate the world with His people, in His time. Lastly (another gripe), if he was so concerned with remaining true to the Reformers, and that's what makes one truly Reformed, then why isn't he an Historicist? They were. Those are some gripes, that's all. I do truly appreciate Dr. Clark and his work. It's just I have to vent after listening to him some times.

Keep it coming, Keith! 🎉

I’m so confused how there is so much misunderstanding of what theonomist and Christian Nationalist believe and are working towards.

I started listening to this early this morning. I was gazing at the newly-risen sun as the openning was playing and I thought "Oh goodie, I get laughs all day!"

Something should have been asked about Question 100 of the Heidleberg CATECHISM. This seems to plainly support and require blashphemy laws. QUESTION 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavor, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing? Answer. It undoubtedly is, [f] for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this [g] sin to be punished with death.

"General equity" is not natural law. It is drawing inferences from revealed case law, while natural law appeals to a subjective intuition apart from revelation.

Always love the intro, didnt understand every single thing from the convo, but interesting to learn diff perspectives. May God bless you & both your families!

Excellent banter. Lots of dancing around Voldemort but his name was never spoken. Bravo!

My in laws were regular Baptists, but I’d never heard of them until I got married. I only knew North American, American, and Southern Baptists.

I loved the last half hour of the interview. As a reformed baptist (sorry not sorry dr. Clark) I love the Heidelberg catechism. Such a beautiful and clear gospel presentation.

Best into since the fullhouse opening theme

Excellent interview. Your great style and insight make for pertinent questions. R Scott Clark’s Heidleblog is one of my favorite sites. I appreciate him as a historian and theologian.

For someone whose feed is drowned by postmillenial theonomists I found this very enlightening, and I am a premillennial myself.

25:25 The doctrine of predestination is chapter 3 in the Westminster Confession. It's in the top three! Only Scripture and the Trinity are more important! 27:16

30:02 Facts matter. Predestination is more important than the law and gospel distinction. The law/gospel distinction is not even directly addressed in the WCF.

I really liked his book "The Road Less Traveled".

Hey Keith what’s the difference between the 1689 and 1644? I’ve never read the 1644 but I really like the 1689 so I was just wondering.

R Scott Clark's comments on theonomy is a series of mistakes. He is a soft antinomian and terrible on the Law and political theology. You don't even have to be a theonomist to recognize this. His radical form of two kingdoms theology is a distinct departure from classical two kingdoms theology which has a lot in common with theonomy. And I do love the smirk that you had on your face when you asked him why he wants us to be ruled by pagans. In reality that's the truth of the matter.

It’s a whole lot easier to say Reformed Baptist than to say Calvinistic, Confessional, Covenantal Baptist. Allow us the ease of brevity. Whether he’s right or wrong, I see Clark as insulting.

Hey Keith, I've been away for a little bit: Is there a place where the new theme song lyrics are printed? I can't quite make out the first word before "[?]...and bowties, laughs till sunrise." and the captions are useless.

Loved this episode.

Muller disagrees with him in Post-Reformed Systematic Theology. Also, it's been demonstrated Clark isn't consistent in his argument. Because of the Westminster *he* holds to would be sent through the time machine, he would not be Reformed either. If the term is frozen to the Puritans, he fails. If it isn't, then by definition, it is open to anyone who holds to the tradition. Not a denomination. And if we REALLY want to be strict about it being a denominational term, Presbyterians don't get it either. Because they don't sign the 3 Forms of Unity.

Sniff...Snifff... Do you smell that brothers? That's the smell of Dividing Line, Apologia Radio, Blog and Mablog, Crosspolitic, and many other Post-Mill podcasts cooking up responses to that last segment.

Super oversimplified, RU-vid comments, version of Reformed Baptist: 1) clear law Gospel distinction 2) covenantal (redemption, works, Grace.) 3) calvinistic 4) confessional (E.G.1689) 5) ordinary means of grace… We just don’t believe that you baptize people into the covenant, the spirit regenerates people into the covenant.

That was a great conversation. My issue I take with the covenant guys Is they take that 1 covenance of grace... That is a theological covenant. When placed over the text is squashes down the the two major covenants and turns them into administrations. Then the NC isn't really new. I appreciate the conversation.

The terms that describe baptists do mean something. The term "baptist" is probably a shortening of the term "ana baptist" which was used by those who rebaptized those who were baptized as infants. Then you have "missionary baptist" which is a baptist that believes in church planting. I'm not sure how that fits with Calvinism, but there are missionary baptists who are Calvinists. Then there are "landmark missionary baptists" who are so strickly opposed to infant baptism that they don't believe that those who practice infant baptism that they won't allow them preach in their pulpits. But at the same time, some of these terms have fallen out of use for various reasons. Baptist churches that could rightly be called general baptists won't use that term because there are General Baptists whose main distinction from other baptists is that they believe people can lose their salvation as a result of sin. They are similar to Freewill Baptists, but there is some kind of distinction there. And particular baptists aren't likely to use that term because that term has fallen out of favor of the churches in the organizations they are a part of.

The funniest and most truthful statement in this podcast was related to the squatters of the Reformed faith. We are putting up tents in our churches to give them a safe space while they work out their systematic theology. Let us be patient. Eventually, the Lord will open their eyes to their cultural indoctrination.

I don’t know what postmillennialists or Christian nationalists he is interacting with, but I have never heard any of either group worth their salt say any of the nonsense he was spewing as a “refutation”. Pure straw manning

I look at it thinking the Presbyterian view doesn’t own the doctrines of grace since it is a succinct description of the works and grace of God in scripture. Your description Keith of what a Calvinistic Baptist is is what I most identify as. But yes I’ve been trying to describe my identity to others but A doctrines of grace believing Baptist is a little long 🤷‍♀️

I wonder how Paul Washer or James White would respond to the position that they should not call themselves reformed? 😁

Both Baptists and Presbyterians are not Reformed if they de-emphasize predestination! 28:55

R. Scott Clark: “You can’t be Reformed in any way.” Also R. Scott Clark: “You are Anabaptist even if you don’t hold to the great majority of Anabaptist theology.”

Fair point on the baptists reformed title, but I say "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"!

The bad news is you have a duty to obey the moral law to attain assurance of your election. 2 Peter 1:10-11 (KJV 1900): Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Sadly, I think this issue has been treated with some pride and using "Reformed" as a trademark which can be owned by some denominations, while using history as an excuse. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if you could share links where I can find more of his works on these matters? On the other hand, could you share the resources you mentioned on both Baptist Confessions of Faith, please? I would appreciate to know more on your church's decision on opting for the first one instead of the latter one. Thanks and blessings.

1:17:08 1:17:09 You can't get law from rocks and trees..

Bahnsen as Van Til's student and successor would be the best source to know about Van Til's apologetic. 🙂

Terrific episode! Really enjoyed hearing Dr. Scott's opinions on so many great topics!

This was a fun episode. Clark's claims sounded a little bit like "You can't have our terms because we had them first 👶" The Roman Catholic church could say the same thing about him and force him to stop using certain titles. Petty.

It’s amazing how R. Scott Clark sounds dumber as the conversation progresses. He’s so academic he’s detached from reality.

1:04:19 Agree

Why is Scott Clark defending the state religion of secular humanism?

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (KJV 1900): And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

So what do you call Baptists who hold to the 1689 London Baptist confession

Spurgeon said, "Reformed theology is just a nickname for Biblical Christianity." Not in the 20th century where “they” stole the “reformed” from “us”! Cried me a river! 🤦‍♂️😉😂 You are always my family if you have Christ

59:09 Two fold truth?? 59:25

If the big difference in the Scriptures is the Law and the Gospel, where do you see that big distinction mentioned in the New Testament? In Luke 16:16 you see the distinction between the Law and the Prophets verses the preaching of the Kingdom. We know the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit from Romans 14:17. Romans 7:6 makes the distinction between the Law and the newness of the Spirit and Romans 8:1-16 further explains that difference. Why is it that Baptists tend to minimize the Promise of the Father, the tarry in Jerusalem part until you receive power from on high and the importance of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (which Jesus couldn't wait to tell the woman at the well about) at Pentecost, as Peter by revelation proclaimed it. They also minimize that Jesus said He would not leave us as orphans, but He would send another Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. The Baptists speak of the grace of God but when it comes to the importance of the Holy Spirit in the church, they very kindly give Him a seat in an out of the way back corner or back room. If you claim to be such people of the Word, why is the work of the Spirit so important in the Book of Acts and so trivialized in your churches?

31:31 The LBCF 1689 is not reformed at all? Scotty is over-generalizing.

33:02 Scotty is hypocritical. The 1689 has been around for a long time!

He a Husker fan? GBR!

Like all heretics, Scotty over-emphasizes one or two doctrines in the system of propositional truth in the Bible to the exclusion of all else. I follow the Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Standards.

Scott Clark is not Reformed. 23:33. He follows latitudinarian views and redefines the word reformed according to Richard Muller's bad scolarship.

I'm no scholar (I think I'm pretty well-informed) but his takes on theonomy were not accurate based on everything I've heard on the topic. he said things that just aren't true.

1:02:14 Gordon zH. Clark was purely a presuppositionalist. 1:03:19

1:14:53 Trump is a LIBERTARIAN.

Servetus. 1:11:37

Sad to see the founders ministry linking with christian nationalism. I see value in what they do but im just a baptist not reformed.

1:14:23 Hire Biden as king????

TOTALLY agree with Dr. Clark on this. You simply cannot be both Reformed and Baptist!

The fact that he sends Christians in western Nebraska to baptist churches (rather than, say, LCMS), indicates that his view of church and sacrament is fundamentally congregational and even baptistic.

my phone freeze framed at 41:11 😂😂

Lutherans were the first reformers.

Aquinas was not a Christian. Here are his last words: If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament. I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written aught erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life. He submitted himself to Rome not Christ.

It is absolutely correct that baptists aren't reformed. And while I agree that those who are reformed do hold to infant baptism, I'm not sure that it ever made sense to include infant baptism in the definition of reformed, since the Catholics also practice infant baptism. But I also don't get why people who believe in Calvinism hold to baptizing babies. That doesn't make sense either.

So these two pretty much agree with Doug Wilson and Apologia Church on Christian Nationalism and theonomy. They said the same thing pretty much as Doug Wilson stated in his interview with Tucker.

Geneva eas theocratic. 1:09:07

1:06:45 Let Satan reign?

Scotty is eoke. 1:09:41

This guy is arrogant and loves misrepresenting certain people. Anybody that in any way implies that post-millennials don't have a strong theory of suffering at any time prior to Christ's return is either the worst kind of liar or a complete idiot, or at best is woefully poorly red and uninformed. Since he claims to definitely not be the last and I refuse to put him in that category he's one of the first two.

Don't forget to hit the thumbs down button twice! 😂

Yes, CT guys often take you to Jesus then send you right back to Moses.

Particular Baptists are not Reformed. I’m still waiting on Lutheran Baptists to come out.

666 views....

The Law is not bad news to the believer, don’t buy into this.

A reformed Baptist is a Presbyterian