# Auburn ave



## Swampguy (Feb 24, 2006)

What's wrong here:
http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official Positions and Statements/summary statement on baptism.htm


----------



## Civbert (Feb 24, 2006)

Huh. ... So the we are elect by baptism, except not really, but really we are, but we can't be sure we are saved, but we can be assured by our baptism, which doesn't save us, but does regenerate and elect us, but that doesn't mean we are saved by works, but if we do good works we are saved, but we can't know that for sure, but be assured anyway, as long as we go to "Church"... Yeah, that's clear. 

Embrace the confusion!


----------



## Civbert (Feb 24, 2006)

Doesn't anyone have any comments on this? Here it is in black and white. Read it carefully.



> Summary Statement of AAPC's Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation (Revised)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 25, 2006)

I read this a while back and your comment pretty much sums it up!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 25, 2006)

They are interested in re-definition, not re-formation. They claim to have a desire to change theological terms to make them more Biblical, such as "election" and "regeneration", but they fail to do so. Clearly the AA view of election and regeneration, for example, are not Biblical at all. The first chapters of 1 Peter and Ephesians refutes their view of election, etc.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> They are interested in re-definition, not re-formation. They claim to have a desire to change theological terms to make them more Biblical, such as "election" and "regeneration", but they fail to do so. Clearly the AA view of election and regeneration, for example, are not Biblical at all. The first chapters of 1 Peter and Ephesians refutes their view of election, etc.



But while they may wreck havoc with terminology, the good thing is that they do not do away with the underlying content.

For example, they still fully agree that God predestines who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell. They just don't all call it "election" like I do. (At least one AA person DOES call it "election" like the rest of us do, but we are not really allowed to talk about him on this board . . .)

While they may be confusing with their redefined terminology, I am relieved to know that they don't mess around with the underlying content of the doctrines of grace. They still believe in the total depravity of man, they still believe that God unconditionally chooses some people to be saved, they still believe that God chooses a limited (not universal) number of people to be saved, they still believe that God will irresistably bring predestination to final fruition, and they still believe that God will infallibly preserve those He has chosen. 

That still sounds like TULIP to me, even if they do cause confusion with their definition for particular words. They may be confusing, but they are not guilty of damnable error, as far as I can tell. I don't see any place where they mess up the doctrines of grace.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 25, 2006)

"They" do not hold to perseverance of the saints, for example, as they believe that the elect can and do fall away from grace.


----------



## Robin (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Joseph...I'm trying to consider your points here...and in all due courtesy...I must add:

Long lists could be made of aberrant/false teachings that revere many of God's attributes. Jehovah Witnesses have a strong belief in God's sovereignty, Etc.

However, it is the doctrine of Justification that suffers from neglect in the church. Whenever the doctrine of Justification is tampered with -- it sends everything else off in different trajectories.

Justification is ground-zero. It is the "underlying content of the doctrine of Grace." Period. If that goes -- everything else goes....sooner or later.

Didn't the Galatian church believe in the one, true Sovereign God; Christ's resurrection and man's proclivity to sin, Etc? Why was Paul so upset with them? 

Paul is the authority on defending The Faith that was ONCE delivered (Jude 3.) Not we, ourselves.

It's not evident to you that the doctrine of grace is tamped with? When was the last time you compared AA's teaching to Justification as taught in Romans? The frog in the boiling pot of water couldn't tell what was happening until too late, either. 

Study the doctrine of Justification in Romans.

Another small but important admonishment....try to lose the idea of Reformed theology being primarily about "election." It is NOT! It is about SALVATION - about how God saves the wicked (as Romans 5 puts it.) Again, Justification is the lead, here....

The Apostle Paul has done such a stellar job in explaining Salvation that Satan has to devise a way of "redefinition" to succeed. Peter warned about this very thing...

2 Peter 3:14--18

... be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the *ignorant and unstable* twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.



Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> "They" do not hold to perseverance of the saints, for example, as they believe that the elect can and do fall away from grace.



Gabe,

With respect, you need to do more homework before commenting on what AA people believe. From your statement, it is obvious that you don't know what they teach.

Your error is in assuming that they mean the same thing by "elect" as you do. Clearly, most of them do not. So yes, according to their definition of "elect" (which is different from yours and mine), the elect can fall away.

But they still retain the content of the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints". They DO believe that God has chosen a certain number of people to be saved and ultimately glorified, and NONE of those chosen will fail to reach final glorification.

Thus, they DO believe in the perseverance of the saints. TULIP remains intact. They just don't use the same terminology as you and I do.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> It's not evident to you that the doctrine of grace is tamped with? When was the last time you compared AA's teaching to Justification as taught in Romans? The frog in the boiling pot of water couldn't tell what was happening until too late, either.



Robin, 

Your error here is the same as Gabe's, and the same as many other Reformed people who are otherwise clear-thinking and sound. The problem is that you confuse a *semantic* argument with a core *doctrinal* argument. 

Take the word "elect", for example. You and I both agree on what it means. You and I both would say that the "elect" are those who God chose before the foundation of the world to be saved in Christ. Well, the AA people obviously do not define the word "elect" the same way you and I do. Nevertheless, do they still agree that God chose some people unto salvation, before the foundation of the world? YES! Thus, they agree with us on content, even though they may confuse some of the terminology. But this means that we are having a SEMANTICAL argument, not a CORE-DOCTRINAL one. They STILL believe in the elect, they just don't use the same word "elect" to name them.

Well, the same thing goes for their views on "justification". Do they believe that a person becomes right with God on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone? YES! But they use the WORD "justification" in different ways in different contexts. Thus, once again, they are messing with the terminology, without necessarily messing anything up with the underlying doctrines.

(By the way, how do YOU define the word "justified" in James 2?)


Let me repeat what I have said on this forum numerous times:

People are made right with God by faith alone in Christ alone.
*If you can demonstrate that the AA/FV people reject that fact, then I will join with you in anathematizing them. *


But I do not anathematize them, because I do NOT think they reject _sola fide_. Rather, it seems to me that they just use a different set of terminology to describe their beliefs, and that makes you nervous. 

In my opinion, most people are just too lazy to take the time to really figure out what the "other guy" really believes. If at first glance it sounds bad or confusing, it is much easier to just yell "heresy" and "anathema", instead of doing the hard work of actually TALKING to the person to make sure you understand what he believes.

Let me ask you, Robin: Have you personally tried contacting Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Mark Horne, or any of the other FV/AA crowd to ASK them whether you understand them? Or does Matthew 18 not interest you?

Mark my words: 
Ask a knowledgable Roman Catholic if he rejects _sola scriptura_, and he will say, "yes". Ask a Jehovah's Witness if he rejects the deity of Christ, and he will say, "yes". You see, even though they are deathly wrong, they will AGREE that you understand their position. Then, you can start from there in your discussions with them. But for some sad reason, many people don't even care to give the FV/AA people enough respect to at least try to *understand* them first. Ask a FV person if he rejects the perseverance of the saints, and he will answer, "NO!" Ask a FV person if he rejects justification by faith alone and he will loudly answer, "NO!" 

You don't have a *right* to anathematize people, until you can first state their position in such a way that THEY will agree with it. Until you can do this, you don't have any business passing judgment on them.

I personally disagree with a lot of the whole FV/AA thing. Great confusion has entered the church because of this whole controversy. But I will NOT call them heretics, because I HAVE done my homework, and they do NOT deny the Gospel. They DO agree with us that salvation is ONLY by faith in Christ alone.

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Peter (Feb 26, 2006)

What does Matt 18 have to do with a public scandal?

I dont think we should be wasting our time giving these false teachers our audience. What need is there for re-definition of established Reformed dogma? Isn't this the exact same tactic of Romanism, to ape christianity with subtle sophistry? If you think its a trifle to be so harsh on them for "merely redefining" remember "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." The best way to not be bewitched by false teaching is to ignore false teachers.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> The best way to not be bewitched by false teaching is to ignore false teachers.



Aha . . . then why not just ignore them? It doesn't bother me at all for people to ignore these guys. But it DOES bother me for our brothers in Christ to be anathematized and called heretics.

Why don't you take your own advice, and simply ignore them? As long as you come post on threads like this one, "ignoring them" is precisely what you are NOT doing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 26, 2006)

I'll have to admit I'm not as knee-deep into this controversy as others so I cannot offer a fully developed critique or defense of what these guys are doing. I would tend to lean more in the camp of being critical of what they are doing, however.

Joseph: I think you're right that they are using terms differently. In fact, what is interesting about what they're writing is that it reminds me of the Covenantal arguments that are regularly engaged in between the Presbyterians and the Baptists. The Reformed Baptists are repeatedly insistent that there is no sense in which a reprobate person is a Christian and that we are guilty of a Covenantal fiction when we baptize our children. In that sense, I appreciate the way that they frame some of their statements affirming that there is a real, biblical sense in which must treat members in the visible Church as if they are part of Christ. They even enjoy benefits and appear to be Christ's for a season. 

To treat Christians otherwise would be to walk around in suspicion of your brother, for who knows the number of Elect except God. Even those that "fall away" may do so for a season. Thus, when we move down the road of thinking too much like Baptists and equating the New Covenant as only consisting of the Elect (as if we can discern who the elect are before we baptize them), this might be a reminder of the Biblical sense of the visible/invisible distinction and the real importance of the Covenant. I honestly believe that some Presbyterians are pseudo-Baptists in the way they think about Covenant participation purely in elect/reprobate terms.

That all said, I am highly critical of their methods. I wish they had stopped much earlier in the affirmation (maybe around point 3). It is one thing to acknowledge the tension that exists between knowing that there is a difference between our knowledge of God's precepts (living in the Covenant) and our knowledge of His decree (elect/reprobate).

Why re-define terms though? Honestly, that is a VERY STUPID thing to do. Why? For the very reason you gave yourself:


> In my opinion, most people are just too lazy to take the time to really figure out what the "other guy" really believes. If at first glance it sounds bad or confusing, it is much easier to just yell "heresy" and "anathema", instead of doing the hard work of actually TALKING to the person to make sure you understand what he believes.


That's fine for Theologians to parse such things but it is very destructive to the sheep. I know we pride ourselves in the Reformed faith about being well-read, too smart to be led astray by silly doctrines like those Calvary Chapel folk who seem to never venture outside of Revelation to concern themselves with important doctrines. It's just *pride* though. I've been around Reformed Churches long enough (and non-Reformed as well) to know that a little reading doesn't give men and women discernment. Not every man and woman is able to rightly divide the word of Truth. That's what elders are for after all.

Honestly, I'm just happy when men and women get Justification right. We get them out of systems of error where Justification and Election are all gooned up and explain it rightly to them. Then what?! The Auburn Avenue people pull the rug right out from under them! I mean, seriously, WHAT _IS_ THE POINT in taking a term like Election and Justification, terms that have been defined a certain way for hundreds of years in the Reformed tradition, and then suddenly using them in a new way. Maybe there's an issue with whether or not the use was as precise as it ought to be to begin with but the end result is that the majority report uses a term one way and then you have to explain to the Average Joe that you mean something different by it. 

Again, this is VERY STUPID. I don't know any other way of saying it. Get your point across by staying within the definitions. There is no reason they could not have done this to begin with. It only causes confusion and division. It leads people astray who are unable to nuance. The irony is that they're trying to create a way of talking about Church life that is less head theology and more pastoral. What they end up doing is confusing. A pastoral heart would know better.

Thus, Joseph, I'm on board with your concern but I think the fact that they change definitions ought to be rebuked very sharply and ought to be the main point of rebuke. They don't have the Ecclesiastical "right" to change definitions and tell everyone else to get on board.


----------



## Peter (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



That's a little silly Joseph. Do you think I meant closing my eyes and pretending they don't exist? Ignore their false teachings. Do not give consideration to what they say. Let the teachers and watchmen of the church deal with them. Why do a handful of ministers and their throng of college student apologist deserve my attention? Of a million and one tiny neoliberal sects why should listen to them? In my spare time I will research Roman Catholicism, AA is just repackaged popery any way.


----------



## Robin (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Let me ask you, Robin: Have you personally tried contacting Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, Mark Horne, or any of the other FV/AA crowd to ASK them whether you understand them? Or does Matthew 18 not interest you?



Joseph, you might be unaware that YES, these men have had the Christian courtesy of Matt. 18 by their peers in the Church corporate - Mike Horton and Kim Riddlebarger among those who've been rightly charitable towards reaching an understanding with Wilson (to my personal knowledge.) Why do you suppose that Westminster in Calif. can publicly speak to the error of the movement and these men? Is WSC violating Matt. 18? There is a conference tape "The Foolishness of the Gospel" in '05 dealing with all the problems of FV, naming names; the book is out sometime this year. (Ask Dr. Clark about these.) Make no mistake: the Gospel is at stake!

Joe...with respect, do the homework -- lest you wish to continue in darkness on the matter.

Another mistake implied is that we're just flinging accusations (for no good reason/ like we've nothing better to do.) It's Biblical to counter; scrutinize; rebuke PUBLIC declarations/teachings when the Gospel under attack. Nobody has said things about Wilson's personal life. By all accounts, he's a very likable fellow. Most false teachers ARE. That's why they're so dangerous!

The upshot of Wilson's stance is he insists faith be "faithful" - in other words, it must "work" to prove authenticity. Welcome back to Rome. Did you see the slick handwork as the works righteousness card was dealt from the bottom of the deck?

I'm aware that my posts are accountable one of my church denom's pastors - Dr. Scott Clark. He can judge what I've said.

Who are you accountable to, btw? 



Curtsy,

r.

P.S. If you listen to the Westminster conference, you will note some of the most charitable, fair, gracious and patient demeanor given towards those who (to date) show themselves to be *wolves in sheep's clothing (*my label, btw - I'll take responsibility for it. Only a wolf would dare to re-define the Apostle Paul.)


----------



## Robin (Feb 27, 2006)

A PCA chuch explains the problems of judging FV:

(excerpt)

The difficulty with labeling FV as a heretical movement is two-fold. First, FV is not a monolithic movement. Not every proponent is deeply enmeshed in it nor does every teacher take its teachings to their logical conclusions. Second, the proponents of FV still assert Biblical orthodoxy when speaking their "decretal" language. Nevertheless, the FV introduction of works righteousness through their "covenantal" language, the conclusions stemming from their view of the objectivity of the Covenant of Grace, and their type of Sacramentalism all qualify as heresy according to our understanding of Scripture. And as the FV views have spread, they have left a party spirit, and even division, in their wake.

the full story:

http://www.woodruffroad.com/federal_vision.php

r.


----------

