# NPP/AA as a tertium quid?



## AdamM (Dec 15, 2004)

I found this thought provoking post on another message board and wondered what everybody thinks about the conclusion? 

Go Here to read it:

LINK to Post


[Edited on 12-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 15, 2004)

Adam,
Is this quote from a member of another board?


----------



## AdamM (Dec 15, 2004)

No Scott, not this board. 

The board is called "A Better Country." The discussions there tend to be centered on Reformed Theology in general.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 15, 2004)

Adam,
Is the quote from someone on that board? If so, did the person give you permission to post his quote? It is our policy here on PB to not quote anyone from another board with out their knowledge. It has caused some difficulty in the past.

[Edited on 12-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 15, 2004)

Scott,

Yes the quote is from someone on another board.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 15, 2004)

Thanks Ian.

*See my statement above.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

It would be a very bad thing for AA/NPP to become missial.

They attempt to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
They deny "œforensic" justification. 
They allege that the WCF is corrupted by the pre-Enlightenment thinking (??)
They read Biblical history as "a Story" 
They deprecate the value of systematic theology (and don't know it)
They introduce different views of covenant, faith, baptism, the Lord's Supper, election, regeneration, apostacy, and sacramental efficacy, etc. 
They have a deviant, unbiblical view of salvation in total.

Federal Visionaries are heretics of the higehst order. Again, it would be bad if they suddenly became missionary minded.

I am working on a 30 page critique of The Federal Vision right now. As much as I love to see people saved, I want to blow these guys out of the water, and not mince words. Most of the articles out there are too kind towards them. Beisner, Duncan, Phillips, Kelley, Riddlebarger, et al. just can't seem to publically say "These men are heretics of the highest order." Well, after the Doug Wilson critique I did, and how many of my friends in the pulpit are contedneing with uneducated pastors on this issue in thier prebyteries, I intended on saying that and a whole lot more about these false teachers. However, there is wind of a public denunciation of them coming soon. But one has to asks, "Why it i taking so long??"

In any case, I would appreciate prayer for this article.

[Edited on 12-15-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> It would be a very bad thing for AA/NPP to become missial.
> 
> They attempt to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
> ...



Matt,

Help me here:

How is the first happening in FV? I have not seen it, but I may have missed it.

As to the second, wouldn't it be true to say that is ok, so long as it does not denigrate or militate against systematics?

Your other points are well taken.


----------



## AdamM (Dec 15, 2004)

Scott, thanks for the heads up. I don't want to cause you any grief. Would a link direct link to the post suffice and then a delete of the copied message? I tried (pasted below) to get a direct link, but couldn't get it to work. 

LINK to Post

Can you spot the trouble in the direct link? 

Thanks!


[Edited on 12-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

Fred,

The economic theories behind the Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption are basically denied by the FVs. That play immediately on decree, intent, providence, the sending o Christ, the plan in geenral... They are reforumlating the Law, and its purpose, which is a direct shift in the character of God (the law being hte exact rfelction of who He is). Basically, which is the title of the papaer I am writing, they "Domesticate God."


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 15, 2004)

Matt,

In looking at the FV's you can't forget the significant influence of Norm Shepherd and James Jordan. Their redefinition of Covenant has been pivotal in development of FV theology. In fact Shepherd was suppose to be at the 2002 AAPC, but was unable to attend due to his wife's illness. John Barach replaced him.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 15, 2004)

I read Horton's article the other day, I found it very insightful.

http://www.modernreformation.org/mh04dejavu.htm


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Matt,
> 
> In looking at the FV's you can't forget the significant influence of Norm Shepherd and James Jordan. Their redefinition of Covenant has been pivotal in development of FV theology. In fact Shepherd was suppose to be at the 2002 AAPC, but was unable to attend due to his wife's illness. John Barach replaced him.



I am going to start with a short history. I want to cover EP Sanders, NT Wright, Shpherds, et al. and all the Auburn guys.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 15, 2004)

Matt,

Have you read much of Leithart's stuff? His view of the covanental relationship within the trinity (not the CoR) goes along way in the redefinition of the covenant. Personally I think he is the most dangerous of them all since he is considered to be the one with all the credentials and does all the heavy lifting for Wilson, who is basically just a front man. 

Actually you could write volumes about all the wacko stuff these guys have put out there.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

Wayne - do you have links anywhere for Leithart?

Post them if you got them. I ordered a couple of books.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 15, 2004)

Here is his blog with a bunch of material:

http://www.leithart.com/


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 16, 2004)

Fred, I skimmed over his site. It does not seem to have many articles online that really cover the subject (I found 2 or 3 that are only a paragraph or two). Did I miss something?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred, I skimmed over his site. It does not seem to have many articles online that really cover the subject (I found 2 or 3 that are only a paragraph or two). Did I miss something?



I don't know. I have not seen the specific articles Wayne mentioned, just thought they might be on the blog.

The guy you may want to also read is Ralph Smith. His site is www.berith.org (I think). He has written a book on the Trinity, and it is also much of the intellectual underpinnings for Wilson et al (and he gets the resultant gushy praise for "taking theology to the next level", being free of Greek categories, etc.)

To be honest - I think Rick would be among the PCA guys most up on this. You may want to talk to him to get some resources.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 16, 2004)

Matt,

Actually I was thinking about his books versus what he may have on the Web.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 16, 2004)

Probably try
Against Christianity. It is a quick read and he admits that it may have problems in it that need to be challenged and worked out.

Also try his old testament intro, A House for my Name


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 17, 2004)

Have you tried Mark Horne's website?

Leithart's Essays


----------



## RickyReformed (Dec 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> It would be a very bad thing for AA/NPP to become missial.
> 
> They attempt to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
> ...



Matt,

I will strive to keep you in my prayers regularly regarding your article (and your other work as well.) I agree most heartily with the points you bring up above, especially the "Why is it talking so long?" and the need for a decisive critique. You will almost certainly be attacked in their blogs. Thank you for contending for the truth.

In Christ,
Rick P.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 20, 2004)

Rick,

Thanks for your encouragement. They guys are outright heretics: Smith, Leithart, Horne, Lusk, Meyers, Jordan, Baruch, Schlissel, et al.

One theologian I know said they remind him of a those that got cut from the football team and are just making a stink. They are second stringers who can't get published and have decided to move in a direction that takes the church back to Calvinistic Confessionalism, although their ignorance precedes them.

Problem is, they are sorely ignorant of church history and historical theology, have reinvented a new kind of covenantal nomism (Romanism), have no idea what the cohesive structure of Westminster is even about, much less are theologically able to deal with the theology behind it, and think, all along, they are following confessional Calvinism, and Calvin himself. What happens is that they take bits and pieces of the Institutes, and bits and pieces of Westminstarian theology, piece it together with new definitions for their own theology, and then pass if off as Christianese orthodoxy. 

I have all their books as of today, and have read a ton of stuff out there in the last week on their Internet papers, including rebuttals from the Knox Seminary book out right now on the issues. I'd rather stick with their books. They are more official, and having something in the public eyes such as that is more helpful.

My direction this week is to take Ralph Smith's book and reveal the liberalism and reinvention of Karl Rahner's theological culturalism that it really is, as well as demonstrate Smith's ridiculous assertions on Tri-theism, and redefining "covenant." he is simply a Modern Theologian who has been influenced heavily by the Enlightenment and neo-orthodoxy.

Remember this - whenever you have someone trying to "redefine" old concepts, you have someone hatched out of liberal thinking. These guys are poster children for Modern Theology of that sort.

After I deal with Smith, I'm going to deal with the Knox Seminary book, as well as their "Federal Vision" book (as time permits).


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 20, 2004)

Matt,

I agree with Rick: I'm glad you are going to do this, but be prepared for both outright attacks and "ever so witty" mocking. I'm sure it will be but a week or so before someone comes up with a witty/cute nickname for A Puritan's Mind.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Dec 20, 2004)

Wait a minute...

They think the WCF is corrupted by Pre-Enlightenment thought? Are they sure it's not the other way around? That is, are they corrupted by Enlightenment thought?

Or maybe church polity should be based on the general will of the people, or perhaps we should have a wise pastor control everything.


----------



## berek_qinah (Dec 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Thanks for your encouragement. They guys are outright heretics: Smith, Leithart, Horne, Lusk, Meyers, Jordan, Baruch, Schlissel, et al.
> 
> One theologian I know said they remind him of a those that got cut from the football team and are just making a stink. They are second stringers who can't get published and have decided to move in a direction that takes the church back to Calvinistic Confessionalism, although their ignorance precedes them.
> ...



well, ok. might I just say, even as you "deal with" my father, that outright heretic trying to be a missionary to the Japanese people, that you remember that it does not at all seem, from how I see things, that you quite understand all the theology going on. My father is not a tri-theist, nor does he teach it. Our church subscribes to the three forms of unity and reaches out with the hope of emulating a truly Christ-like spirit and doctrine.

It's quite amazing to see how confident and sure you are of your own readings and understandings. You certainly have my prayers. However, above all, I do pray that anything you write to against us will not damage our ministry here in Japan nor our testimony to the Japanese churches and people. Feel free to "deal with" heretics and purge the church of such ignorant fellows as my father, but do not thereby hinder the work of the Spirit even as Spirit has, in our very church, brought many unto himself this past year.

And just one more thing: please do remember that we shall all be judged for our words. Of course, my father for his "rediculous assertions" on Tri-theism just as much as you for your hasty zeal.

May the Lord keep us ever in His gracious arms, showing more mercy than we have shown our fellow men.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 21, 2004)

Berek -

We want to make sure that we have our theology straight, and have not succumb to old ideas or heretical ideas. The Auburn men, like your father, are both misrepresenting historical theology, as well as walking back down the road (and most of them have arrived) to Romanism. They simply do not know their theological moorings and are passing off this "drivel" and "heresy" (being ever so careful with my words) onto the church. That means unsuspecting people are being duped by "Chistianese." 

If that means that Japanese people are being "brought into" Auburn theology, then I hope that what I write, and what others write would *certainly hinder that*.

Yes, we will be judged for our words. That is why your dad needs to repent of that book he wrote. It is an affront to the teachings of the Bible, and has redefined traditional orthodoxy and is leading people in henious error.

At the same time, we also hope that those who believe auburn theology would repent. We certainly do not want to see them judged and condemned on the Day of Judgment for leading people astray. We would much rather see them in heaven glorifying the work of the Savior, than in hell thinking about how they twisted the Gospel into a works salvation.



[Edited on 12-21-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## berek_qinah (Dec 21, 2004)

well, sir, I must say there are a good deal of us that believe you are the one misunderstanding. I hope you pray much when writing your essay and truly seek the will of God, even as St. Aquinas in writing his works. I did realize that I'm not supposed to be posting here, since I'm a heretic, too, by your standards. I don't suppose you'd let me into heaven either. Anyhow, may God pour out His Spirit upon you and impart understanding to your soul. But by hindering our work and ministry here, you thereby hinder the work of Christ. Do remember that.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 21, 2004)

> Well, sir, I must say there are a good deal of us that believe you are the one misunderstanding.



Its in writing. There is nothing to misunderstand unless one completely ignores what these books say. They are quite forward in their "theology." There has been enough written by Lusk, Schlissel, Barauch, Horne, etc. over the past two years that there is no misunderstanding them as much as they run to that "plea." That is the funny thing about all this - the innovations that these men are propagating are OLD heresies. Simply pitting Westminster against these ideas demonstrates their folly. Maybe they are just bad writers? - NOT! They are clear.



> I hope you pray much when writing your essay and truly seek the will of God



Always.



> I did realize that I'm not supposed to be posting here, since I'm a heretic, too, by your standards.



Not ours, the Scriptures. We would never say someone is a heretic unless they meet the biblical criteria of changing a fundamental doctrine of the Bible that is needful for salvation. There is a difference between being in error, and being a heretic. Auburn theology is not only error, but it is also heresy.



> I don't suppose you'd let me into heaven either.



That's up to Christ, and the criteria which He determines that is in the Bible. So we better be sure we know what the Bible says. 



> But by hindering our work and ministry here, you thereby hinder the work of Christ. Do remember that.



Which Christ is that? It is certainly not the Christ of the Bible unless you are going to decide to recant your position. Are you now affirming the imputation of His active and passive righteousness for us, and denying the objectivity of the covenant? Are you affirming the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace? or are you holding to some ethereal "eternal covenant" where people fall in and out of "grace?" Are you affirming justification by faith alone, and have tossed out "covenant relationships?" Are you affirming the Westminsterian definitions of faith, baptism, election, justification, etc. and denying what your father, and the other Auburnites have written? If you have - then - welcome back! If you haven't, then you serve a different Christ of the Bible. And it is no shame for us to pull down those strongholds through relying on the word of God.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 21, 2004)

Mr. Smith,

I personally do not have an opinion on your father's book as of right now, so I am neither with you or against you presently. However it seems that you really should have no fear whatsoever concerning critiques by webmaster or others from this board or elsewhere.

If your position is biblically sound, then you and your father will be able to pick their arguments clean leaving only bones. After this you should find it somewhat easier to convince others of your views, for you will be able to point to how your views came through the fire unscathed.

However if your position is not biblically sound, then I am also confident that it will crumble under the fierce fire that is coming its way. This is not a bad outcome either, for if one is in error then one should want to be shown the error of their ways so that they can repent, get back on the correct track and proceed forward.

So either way, fearing the effect on your ministry should not be something that should concern you.

CT


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 21, 2004)

As with the Atonement, so with all doctrines, I think we should think this way about them:

"The necessity of such an atonement, which is the foundation of all practical piety and all Christian hopes, must therefore be firmly established, and defended against the fiery darts of Satan, with which it is attacked by innumerable adversaries." 
Turretin, The Atonement, soon to be published....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 21, 2004)

Hallelujah!

I'm still thinking these guys want to be justified by their own faith plus works. The old lie Paul was truly exposing. 

Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to the Cross I cling.


----------



## l0g0s (Dec 22, 2004)

Well, as usual, these sorts of accusations fly without biblical support or supporting documentation. Add to that the fact that no real reputable Reformed body has significantly commented with the force and certitude of those on this board means basically that your words and claims regarding supposed heresy go beyond doubtful or suspect to absolutely incredulous.

I suppose you could actually provide the biblical and confessional justification for such claims, but doubtless that would be too much to ask.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 22, 2004)

Kevin,
Click on the link entitled 'u2u' in the upper right hand corner of your screen please.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 22, 2004)

Kevin

1) Yes, I will provide justification in a formal paper both biblically and confessionally simply on Smith (whose work is utterly befuddling Law, Covenatn and the Trinity). It will be published in a journal, and posted on APM, so keep a lookout.

2) There will be plenty of supporting documentation, and there is huge amounts of it already written, both in book form, and on exchanges done with Auburn teachers both from well known theologians, as well as theological journals. People have been refuting this "covenant confusion" for a while. I would be bewildered if you were not up on reading through all the critiques already, so its certainly not new news.

3) The reputable reformed body in determining what to do with these men is published in two works that have already come out: "The Auburn Avenue Theology" by Knox Seminary and teh professors there, and "Justification and the New Perspective on Paul" by Guy Waters (which is very good). Both books demonstrate the Auburn theology as deviant fromt eh biblcial reciord, as well as from histroical confessionalism (both of which are not hard to prove).

Will there be an official hearing on this publically, and with a major Reformed body? I hope so. God knows when this will be, and He is working out the times. Keep your ear to the ground...

We are NOT going to turn this board into a war zone for Auburnites. They will simply have to use the public forum of publications to debate the issues. If they can't get published, they will have to stick to their blogs.


----------

