# Auburn Ave. Theology



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 28, 2006)

Interesting interview in four parts from the Apologetics group. Some of you Presbyterian brethren tell me what you think.

http://apologeticsgroup.com/webcast.shtml


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 28, 2006)

I aint Presbyterian but some of this stuff has affected some Reformed Baptist also and derailed them form true confessional theology. 


Books are better than video and audio most of the time. There are more books coming out on this all of the time. Guy Waters book on Covenant Theology and the Federal Vision is a great read. Sam Waldron a Reformed Baptist wrote a good book discussing the Reformed Confessions and Sola Fide. It also critiques Norm Shepherd. Dr. R. Scott Clark wrote on this topic in the last issue of the Confessional Presbyterian, Baptism and the Benefits of Christ. 

In writings you get better Historical, and bibliographical information. Plus you can digest it better. 

The Federal Vision is very messed up.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 28, 2006)

puritancovenanter said:


> The Federal Vision is very messed up.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 28, 2006)

Dr. Clark has some very good resources on his web site.

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 28, 2006)

I agree it's messed up. I was just wondering if any here thought the people had been misrepresented.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Dec 6, 2006)

4 words when I think of Auburn Avenue. *RUN FOR THE HILLS*


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 6, 2006)

puritancovenanter said:


> I aint Presbyterian but some of this stuff has affected some Reformed Baptist also and derailed them form true confessional theology.




How have Reformed baptists been derailed from true confessional theology by FV thought?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jan 12, 2007)

I am having a real hard time with the logic The Federal Vision presents that says, "since the New Testament addresses the church with such terms 'elect, saints, and saved' and we know there are non-elect (from the standpoint of God's decree) people in the church, therefore there is a 'sense' where there are 'saved', 'elect', and 'regenerate' people in the church who will later fall away and be 'lost'. I think such reasoning is well...silly at best and destructive at worst as it can and is being grossly misunderstood. If learned men are misunderstanding how these terms are being used (if that is indeed what is happening) as the proponents of The Federal Vision contend, what will be the effect in the pew?

To take passages that are addressing the church corporately and apply them to each individual is not a a sound hermenuetic.

What is being presented as an answer to certain 'pastoral concerns' may very well be opening the door to problems far more serious than what it is designed to fix.

Personally, I think they should start over and choose their terms more carefully.


----------

