# The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros & Cons



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

I just finished reading this book last week. The last time I went through it was a rather cursory scanning. But a few weeks ago I got out my pen and my ruler and went to work. I thought I would share my thoughts about the essays and then others could join in if they have read it as well.

The Good

The best essay in the book (hands down) is Chris Hutchinson's response to Steve Schlissel's 'messay.' He is acute, pastoral and most of all clear. He is even very gracious where most of us probably would have blown a gasket. He presents the issues in an simple, 'layman' type format. Well done Chris!

Fowler White's essay on "Covenant and Apostasy" was also excellent. He chides the FV men for gross inaccuracies, sloppy methodology and overall silliness in exegesis. He makes some interesting points about the 'typical' apostasy passages which will need further examination. 

Over all, the rest of the men write with clarity and charity but their essays did not strike me as being particularly enlightening or devastating to the FV. On the other hand, they simply reiterate what our confessions say on these matters, so for that they ought to be commended. Finally, Calvin Beisner's closing essay gets a big 



for summarizing up the differences nicely and putting everything into perspective. 

The Bad

Well I'll admit it; I'm biased so it's not as if I am going to give any of the FV men a passing grade. Particularly noteworthy was John Barach's essay on "Covenant and Election." I know John; he's a bright guy, much brighter than me. But I have to say that as I read through his essay I either had a smile on my face or shook my head in disbelief. That someone with such gifts could be so muddled, confused and down right inarticulate is beyond me. 

Doug Wilson's fare was typical Wilson nonsense: see-saw back and forth on two different views and make it seem like you are orthodox and then laugh, take a puff from your pipe and scream at people who dare call you on the carpet for your ambiguity. 



The Ugly

Lusk, Schlissel and Wilkins. What else do I have to say? Well I will say that it is garbage and not worth reading. I will give them credit, however, for actually being clear about what they believe. If you have any doubt, however, about the orthodoxy of the FV read these men, especially Lusk on justification. Pure nonsense and worthy of discipline. 

Anyone else read this book and care to comment? I haven't found many reviews online...


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 13, 2005)

*Auburn Avenue, the Achilles Heel of Presbyterians*

Booooooo Auburn Avenue


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

I doubt any real Presbyterian would actually identify the FV as such. Schlissel is a congregationalist, Wilson is patriarchalist, Barach is Reformed, and Leithart/Wilkins are in the PCA but probably not for long.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 13, 2005)

Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of the Burlington OCRC
Burlington, WA
www.burlingtonocrc.com


> "œThose doctrines of grace, those precious doctrines of grace, against which so many contend, I could not renounce or bate a jot of them, because they are the joy and rejoicing of my heart. When one is full of health and vigour, and has everything going well, you might, perhaps, live on the elementary truths of Christianity very comfortably; but in times of stern pressure of spirit, when the soul is much cast down, you want the marrow and the fatness. In times of inward conflict, salvation must be all of grace from first to last."
> 
> -Charles Spurgeon



Rev. Dan, 

Could you please reply with the reference to Spurgeon's works from which your signature is quoted?


Thanks,


Brian


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 13, 2005)

*AAT Review in The Confessional Presbyterian*

Ligon Duncan has a fine review of this book in the 2005 Confessional Presbyterian Journal. Copies still available! In a recent notice about this new journal, Rowland Ward writes for the September 2005 _The Presbyterian Banner:_ "Ligon Duncan's review of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons is important as the influence of this thinking is becoming evident in Australia." Dr. Ward also was very kind in his notice of my contribution, saying, "Chris Coldwell's examination (pp 43-64) of the history of [the] text of the Westminster Confession and the work of S.W.Carruthers shows his usual attention to fine detail." I should note that Dr. Ward contributed a fine review of Stephen Westerholm's _Perspectives Old and New on Paul_ to the journal.
But I digress (did I say copies were still available ). In his review of AATP&C, Ligon Duncan writes of Schlissel and Leithart: 


> _The Confessional Presbyterian: A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice,_ v. 1 (2005) 163. http://www.cpjournal.com
> Section two of the book commences with Steve Schlissel´s meandering essay "œA New Way of Seeing" in which he attempts to position the Federal Vision proponents as those who see the big cultural and theological picture, while their detractors are small-minded nitpickers arguing about tassel-length on vestments while Lenin rides a boxcar into Russia. He sees the culprit behind this narrow-mindedness as the Babylonian captivity of the church to Hellenistic philosophy, and posits a propositional-personal dichotomy that is reminiscent of the one many readers will have heard from their Barthian professors in halls of divinity thirty years ago. Chris Hutchinson´s reply is humble in tone and devastating in content.
> 
> Peter Leithart´s essay in chapter five is the most impressive piece in the whole volume from the pro-Federal Vision side. Leithart´s intellect and theological training come through in his outline for a trinitarian recasting of reformed theology. Those familiar with the work of T.F. Torrance will already be acquainted with a number of Leithart´s themes. Leithart´s signature tags regarding "œreification" and "œabstraction" appear here, and nicely complement Schlissel´s diatribe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

Beisner's essay was ok--maybe. He would have done a good job if he hadn't shot himself in the foot on page 320 (ftnote 40--I think--I am recalling this from off my head). I stopped taking him seriously when he said that Van Til was the root cause of the problem. Even more embarrassing is when he recommended John Robbins' hatchet job against Van Til with a straight face.

[Edited on 9--13-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Beisner's essay was ok--maybe. He would have done a good job if he hadn't shot himself in the foot on page 320 (ftnote 40--I think--I am recalling this from off my head). I stopped taking him seriously when he said that Van Til was the root cause of the problem. Even more embarrassing is when he recommended John Robbins' hatchet job against Van Til with a straight face.
> 
> [Edited on 9--13-05 by Draught Horse]



Van Til is not God and is not correct on all things.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Nobody said that Van Til is God.

And nobody said that Van Til is correct on all things.

So what's your point?


----------



## Robin (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Beisner's essay was ok--maybe. He would have done a good job if he hadn't shot himself in the foot on page 320 (ftnote 40--I think--I am recalling this from off my head). I stopped taking him seriously when he said that Van Til was the root cause of the problem. Even more embarrassing is when he recommended John Robbins' hatchet job against Van Til with a straight face.
> 
> [Edited on 9--13-05 by Draught Horse]



Jacob...you're unaware, kiddo....our beloved Van Til is not off the hook. One day, you may have to rethink your favoritism for him.

Heads-up.

Robin


----------



## crhoades (Sep 13, 2005)

I think the Van Til connection etc. would make for a nice thread. Let's not bog down the original intent of this post.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I think the Van Til connection etc. would make for a nice thread. Let's not bog down the original intent of this post.



Thanks Chris R. 

Paul Manata has already pointed out the weakness of Beisner's argument about Van Til. I think that says enough about this point. I still say, however, that the essay is worth reading.

And thanks Chris C. for that excellent quote from Duncan. This made me laugh:



> Section two of the book commences with Steve Schlissel´s meandering essay "œA New Way of Seeing" in which he attempts to position the Federal Vision proponents as those who see the big cultural and theological picture, while their detractors are small-minded nitpickers arguing about tassel-length on vestments while Lenin rides a boxcar into Russia..



I have to say that I disagree with Duncan about Leithart's essay on the Trinity. I found it to be full of holes and mainly because it relies upon an essay written by someone else with little or no scripture reference or serious exegesis.

Any more thoughts on the book? 

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by poimen]


----------



## crhoades (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



For a link to the article of Manata's that he referenced click here

Now back to the scheduled program.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will only give you the quote if you stop calling me Rev. Dan and call me Daniel. Sorry: I'm a little sensitive about my name.



Anyways, the quote is taken from Ian Murray's book "The Forgotten Spurgeon" pages 82-83. The reference is a collection of sermons: either New Park Street Pulpit or Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit volumes. The number is given as: 18, 621. Volume 18, page 621 I'm guessing.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

Chris C.:

Are there electronic copies of the Journal available? I really just want the Duncan review...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Relevance?
Please do not condescend me.
All that I was pointing out was that Beisner WEAKENED what could have been a good essay by making a very unsubstantiated comment (which later proved to be embarrasingly false) against Van Til.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



Don't worry. Andrew is glibly tinkering with death. I know where he lives.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I doubt any real Presbyterian would actually identify the FV as such. Schlissel is a congregationalist, Wilson is patriarchalist, Barach is Reformed, and Leithart/Wilkins are in the PCA but probably not for long.



Well, AA didn't start in congregationalist churches... and Schlissel isn't a congregationalist because he wants to be-- it's because he has been cut off from the Presbytery. The point is-- Presbyterians get stigmatized for AA whether they assent to the blatantly unsound doctrine or not. Outsiders in the nominally Protestant world wouldn't be able to ascribe their straw man's about Presbyterians being quasi-Catholic or believing in baptismal regeneration so easily but for Auburn Avenue... So, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion it is sort of the Achilles' heel of Presbyterians. Being an outsider to the PCA, I do make it a point to correct people when I hear them ascribe the AA position to all Presbyterians, however, rare such incidents might be. I have heard people say it. Dave Hunt perpetuates the myth in his debate with James White. This is not to ruffle anyone's feathers, as I know it is a hot button for many orthodox and doctrinally sound Presbyterians.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Don't worry. Andrew is glibly tinkering with death. I know where he lives.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 13, 2005)

One of the most interesting things I noted in the book was Joe Pipa's response to Wilkins. When I was at AAPC 2002, the immediate comments surrounding Wilkins discussion was about baptismal regeneration. With this the first thought was that he was leaning toward Rome.

What Pipa properly points out is that its not Rome that he is leaning towards but Wittenburg! Wilkins is actually describing a Lutheran view of the sacraments. What's even more interesting is that most of the FV guys have very few nice things to say about Luther and Lutherans!


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. 

I hope you realize what I said about Schlissel was also tongue in cheek. 



[Edited on 9-13-2005 by poimen]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 13, 2005)

Daniel,
Sorry, no firm plans on that front yet. There is actually quite a bit I think that would be of interest, the Fesko contra Wright being the most substantial, but the reviews in the same area of interest, Ward on Westerholm, Forkner on Shepherd, and Webb on Trail on Justification are all good. And it is only $18 postage paid...  


> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Chris C.:
> 
> Are there electronic copies of the Journal available? I really just want the Duncan review...



[Edited on 9-13-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Daniel,
> Sorry, no firm plans on that front yet. There is actually quite a bit I think that would be of interest, the Fesko contra Wright being the most substantial, but the reviews in the same area of interest, Ward on Westerholm, Forkner on Shepherd, and Webb on Trail on Justification are all good. And it is only $18 postage paid... ;-)
> 
> ...



Well you definitely wetting my theological appetite but I still don't know... Many people would be angry in my church if they saw I was reading a Presbyterian periodical!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 13, 2005)

Well, this may be true. And it _is_ very Presbyterian; no getting around that.


> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Well you definitely wetting my theological appetite but I still don't know... Many people would be angry in my church if they saw I was reading a Presbyterian periodical!


----------



## Peter (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the most interesting things I noted in the book was Joe Pipa's response to Wilkins. When I was at AAPC 2002, the immediate comments surrounding Wilkins discussion was about baptismal regeneration. With this the first thought was that he was leaning toward Rome.
> 
> What Pipa properly points out is that its not Rome that he is leaning towards but Wittenburg! Wilkins is actually describing a Lutheran view of the sacraments. What's even more interesting is that most of the FV guys have very few nice things to say about Luther and Lutherans!



I've noticed this as well. I met someone coming from a reformed tradition sympathetic to some FV views though he consciously described himslef as lutheran. Then on the internet I read FV adherents mocking modern reformed explanations of salvation as lutheran.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One of the most interesting things I noted in the book was Joe Pipa's response to Wilkins. When I was at AAPC 2002, the immediate comments surrounding Wilkins discussion was about baptismal regeneration. With this the first thought was that he was leaning toward Rome.
> 
> What Pipa properly points out is that its not Rome that he is leaning towards but Wittenburg! Wilkins is actually describing a Lutheran view of the sacraments. What's even more interesting is that most of the FV guys have very few nice things to say about Luther and Lutherans!



It should be noted that members of the "Federal Vision" recognize where Wilkins stands and some of them have suggestd he actually leave the PCA.


----------



## BrianBowman (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



My apologies Daniel. Thank's for the reference. I plan to use it at some point to challenge Pastors in my former Dispensational sect who love to quote Spurgeon yet deny Salvation by Sovereign Grace alone.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



No need to apologize. I just happen to like Daniel (My God is judge) better than Dan (Judge).

If you want to really challenge them, get them to read the whole book. Spurgeon is at his best in this volume: a great summary of his work and person.

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Which ones?


----------

