# Dr. Nigel Lee on Federal Vision



## Scott Bushey (Apr 23, 2006)

REFUTATION OF THE HYPERCOVENANTAL SACRAMENTOLOGY OF REV. S. WILKINS

Back in the 1990s, Auburn Avenue P.C.A. Monroe Louisiana´s Rev. Steve Wilkins, taped eight of
his sermons -- proposing that also baptized but unconfirmed young children should manducate at the
Lord´s Supper. Later, he augmented his tapes with four articles (which were posted to his website
in 2001). Here is an updated 125-point critique of those taped sermons and published articles -- by
Australia´s Presbyterian Rev. Professor-Emeritus Dr. Francis Nigel Lee.
*1)* Rev. Wilkins should note that God the Father, Son and Spirit have all and always been
mature Persons -- from all eternity past. They have never been immature children

*2)* This mature Triune God made a mature Adam (and a mature Eve) as His Own mature
image(s). Though infant humans too, immaturely image God -- they are immature images. So too
(in His human nature) was the pre-adolescent human being, Jesus Christ Himself. Significantly,
Luke 2:40-52 records His first attendance at a Passover celebration when He was twelve -- one year
before attaining His human maturity at thirteen.

*3)* The transgression by the mature Adam of God´s first covenant with man, is recorded at
Hosea 6:7. Later, his sons Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to God only when they had become
mature enough to be married. Genesis 4:3-17. Indeed, even the re-establishment of this covenant
with the mature Noah and his sons, was effected only when all of those sons were themselves
mature. Genesis 6:18.

*4)* The Bible never calls the prefall tree of life, a Sacrament. Yet it was not for manducation
by the unweaned or by toddlers (neither of which existed before the fall) -- but only for adults. Even
if the fall had never occurred, the fruit of that tree would not have been given to unfallen children at
least until after weaning them (probably around four years of age) -- and more likely yet, not till they
attained adolescence and became capable of marrying (cf. Genesis 2:24). Indeed, the fruit of that
tree of life would not have been given to anyone -- until all were fully mature in their service of God
(cf. Genesis 2:9; 3:22-24; Proverbs 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; Revelation 2:7; 22:2,14,19).

*5)* It is true that olive-trees produce olive-shoots, and not shoots of trees other than olive-trees.
Yet even olive-shoots are only non-fruitbearing olive-shoots. They are not fruit-bearing olive-trees
-- till they themselves later mature. Romans 11:16f cf. John 15:1-7.

*6)* It is incorrect to claim that infidels´ babies were killed at the exodus. Only the first-born
sons of the Egyptians were -- and such first-born would then usually have been adults.

*7)* It is incorrect to claim, in Psalm 137, that the Babylonians´ babies were to be bashed. Such
babies were not criminally wicked. Those to be bashed (though called "˜little ones´), were not
sucklings or toddlers but obviously adolescents or adults who had cruelly wronged Israel. The same
applies to the sodomites in Sodom who had pestered Lot. Genesis 18:26-33 & 19:4-11 cf. Second
Peter 2:5-8 and (Calvin´s commentary on) Jonah 4:11´s "œ discern" with First Corinthians 11:28-29.

*8)* "œSuffer the little children to come to Me" indeed includes babies (or at least toddlers who
could toddle to Jesus), but has nothing to do with the Eucharist from which also Rev. Wilkins would
exclude babies (yet not exclude toddlers). If he wishes to use this text to support Paedocommunion,
he should admit even babies thereto. But he admits babies only to Baptism, but not to the Lord´s
Supper. And herein he rightly differentiates between those two Sacraments.

*More here*

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/ccoaa/ccoaa.pdf



[Edited on 4-23-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 23, 2006)

Isn't it amazaing how much you can learn about truth from refuting error? Those pithy statements could be used to educate adolescents in the nature of justification, sanctification, and the sacraments.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 23, 2006)

There is a lot to be learned from Dr. Lee's site. 

He used to post a lot on the rtdisc Yahoo group but I haven't seen him on there in some time. Maybe he's working on another doctorate!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 23, 2006)

Great Stuff Scott. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 23, 2006)

Wow, that was really long, but really good.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 24, 2006)

Yeah that's one of the good things about Dr.Lee, he's very exhaustive, he really gave a point for point response, excellent stuff . The kind of person you would like on your side in a theological dispute.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 24, 2006)

Uh oh dont show this to the other guys for fear of being called a strict subscriptionist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 24, 2006)

By the way, I love the words he uses. 

This article really gave me something to _manducate_ on.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 24, 2006)

:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 24, 2006)

Yea! Lee attacks all the little backdoors that FV leaves ajar and totally demolishes their nonsense.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

I guess I'm out of the loop here because I don't know what he's talking about. Other than baptizing babies but not letting toddlers take communion, I had no idea what he was talking about. Maybe the "manducate" word threw me off.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> I guess I'm out of the loop here because I don't know what he's talking about. Other than baptizing babies but not letting toddlers take communion, I had no idea what he was talking about. Maybe the "manducate" word threw me off.


 If you don't know about the Federal Vision controversy then that's probably a good thing. It's a controversy within primarily Presbyterian and some Dutch Reformed congregations. It is not really a credo-Baptist "thing".


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

Well that's good. If it's really messed up I want nothing to do with it.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 24, 2006)

"6) It is incorrect to claim that infidels´ babies were killed at the exodus. Only the first-born sons of the Egyptians were -- and such first-born would then usually have been adults."

I don't understand this.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Apr 24, 2006)

So this issue is largely about pedo-communion?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "6) It is incorrect to claim that infidels´ babies were killed at the exodus. Only the first-born sons of the Egyptians were -- and such first-born would then usually have been adults."
> 
> I don't understand this.



Think of it this way. How many families in your neighborhood have first borns that are infants? It would have to be a family that basically had no other children - or else the first borns would be 7, 10, 15 or older (for example). The text also does not say babies, it says first born. So I, for example, would be a first born who would have died, even though I am 36.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> So this issue is largely about pedo-communion?



No, but paedocommunion is the engine that drives much of this. I can't think of one FV advocate (except Steve Schlissel) who is NOT paedocommunion. Most prominent NPP advocates (e.g. NT Wright) are paedocommunion as well.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 25, 2006)

Right, but how does that exclude the killing of infants? "Infants were not killed at the exodus" does not follow from "most of those killed were not infants."


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Right, but how does that exclude the killing of infants? "Infants were not killed at the exodus" does not follow from "most of those killed were not infants."



The point is that Dr. Lee is refuting Wilkins assertion that all (or nearly all) of those killed in the Exodus were infants. It is used as a (bad) buttress for a (worse) doctrine of paedocommunion.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



Rich,

I don't know much about the FV heresy (whereas its proponents call it "controversy"), but I am taking your word (and the Mods words) for what it's worth -- and it's worth _way_ more than . Having said that, considering that it appears to be an "in house" struggle, I'm inclined to think that FV is, to say the least, a Trojan Horse.


----------

