# Help in understanding NP, FV, and Auburn Ave.



## Swampguy (Jan 26, 2006)

I am not a theologian just simply a layman who would like to understand NP, FV, and Auburn Ave. Can someone in the simplist terms explain these things to me? Pretend you are talking to a 10 yr old 







{Moderate}Edited for Title Appropriateness. Please see:

Basic Puritanboard Rules, Specifically Rule #2

Sincerely,
Your Friendly Supermoderator. 


[Edited on 1-28-2006 by joshua]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 26, 2006)

Hmmmm....for a 10 year old? Its thier ambiguity (in some things) that makes that tough. How about some one-liners.

The believe in one covenant from beginning to end called "the everlasting covenant." 

They deny the covenant of works and believe "the covenant" was also in the garden (God was gracious to Adam).

Justification is "table manners" between how Jews and Gentiles relate - its a social issue Paul is dealing with, not a forensic issue surrounding "salvation." This is what Saint Paul really said.

Faithfulness to the covenant and church is justifying. (i.e. what they call "covenant faithfulness.")

The church is not visible and invisible. It is historical and eschatological.

The "church" will be "corporately" justified in the end.

Those "in the church" are all Christians, and inclusion as a Christian is by baptism, which includes people in the "everlasting covenant."

They believe in baptismal regneration, and sacerdotalism.

They believe good works are the grounds by which one may have assurance of salvation specifically seen in accepting baptism without question.

There are a WHOLE scheme of varying degrees of all this depending on who you critique (i.e. Doug Wilson over James Jordan over NT Wright). But those are some of the basics.

I just purchsed a good book (from the looks of it) called "Danger in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the Federal Vision" by John M. Otis. He is part of the RPCUS. I'll let you know if it is any good.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jan 26, 2006)

Thank you for your simple reply Dr. McMahon.

I too have been curious what all the fuss is about the abovementioned "new perspectives", etc. and have been tempted to spend more (valuable) time looking into it ...but I'm still not persuaded that I yet have a decent enough grasp on basic covenant theology and all of it's ramifications -I can't afford the time to read lesser stuff right now. 
I've been reading here and there on it (covenant theology) but have yet to be hit with a big "AHA!" moment as I suspect should happen one of these days.

[Edited on 1-27-2006 by SmokingFlax]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 27, 2006)

Federal Vision = Romanist Presbyterians, aloof from the traditional Reformed faith and Christian orthodoxy.

The simple explanation being the most profound one.


----------



## Swampguy (Jan 27, 2006)

Thanks y'all. This has really helped.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 27, 2006)

Tim, here is a quick, non-technical summary, that I hope is helpful:

- The New Perspective(s) and Federal Vision, in my opinion are best seen as two distinct issues. Although Federal Vision proponents will often use NP material to buttress their claims, there is no organic unity between the two movements in their historical development. 

- The New Perspective(s) on Paul comes to the Church from academia and involves a "œnew" perspective on the teachings of Paul based upon a reappraisal of second temple Judaism (Judaism as it was practiced during the time of Jesus & Paul.) The NPP claims that Second Temple Judaism far from being a religion of works based salvation (know as Pelagianism) was in fact, basically a religion of grace. According to the NPP, the Jew of that era understood that he or she entered the covenant by grace and maintained that status by grace enabled faithfulness (works) to the covenant. So, if as traditionally has been thought, you believe that Paul wrote the book of Galatians to combat pharisaical legalism, surprise! You are mistaken, because according to the NPP that type of Judaism simply didn´t exist at the time of Paul. According to the NPP, the Jews of that era were not introspective folks, losing sleep over their guilty consciences before God. That idea supposedly got imposed upon the text by a tightly wound Augustine and finally reaches its ultimate expression in the life story and teachings of the all time greatest navel gazer, a German monk named Martin Luther. This of course begs the question, well, if we´ve made so many wrong assumptions, what exactly is the problem for which justification is the answer to for Paul? If justification does not *primarily* answer the question of how a guilty sinner can be made right with God, what is the question that the doctrine of justification in the writings of Paul primarily addressing?

- The solution according to the NPP is that the doctrine of justification answers the question of how can gentiles, outsiders to the covenant become partakers of the covenant without first becoming Jews. So the doctrine of justification has less to do with soteriology (how can I, a guilty sinner stand before a holy God) and more to do with ecclesiology (how can I tell who is a member of the family of the God.) So then the "œworks of the law" Paul refers to are not according the NPP acts done by guilty sinners, trying to bootstrap their way to heaven, but instead only Jewish exclusivist boundary markers such as circumcision and dietary laws, which were separating the people of God (Jew v. Gentile). That is why N.T. Wright calls justification the great ecumenical doctrine and bemoans the fact that a doctrine which should serve to unite people has been the cause of radical division in the Church (so both Rome and the Reformation are guilty of missing the main point of the doctrine of justification.)

- In fairness, the more evangelical proponents of the NPP do not deny that individual soteriology (where can I, a guilty sinner find a gracious God?) is a component of justification, it´s just that according to the NPP, it isn´t the *primary* question that justification answers. So under the NPP paradigm, the Reformed standards are not necessarily wrong in their definition of justification, they just miss the main point. If NPP proponents were assigning letter grades, I imagine they might grade the Reformed standards at a D or D+. Not a total failure, but certainly according to the NPP, they didn´t capture the main thrust of the Biblical teaching on justifcation.

In a couple days, I will try to bang out a few thoughts about the Federal Vision. 


For what it's worth, here are two excellent lectures designed for laypeople on the NPP by Dr. Cornel Venema of Mid-America Reformed Seminary that can be downloaded for free: Please check them out.

http://tinyurl.com/c3mxm

http://tinyurl.com/cs9es

FYI, Dr. Venema has a book coming out soon on the NPP published by Banner of Truth, which I anticipate will be outstanding. 

Plus,

Dr. Guy Waters on the FV:
http://tinyurl.com/dkxah

Dr. Joseph Pipa on the FV: Great! Begins with ECT then gets into the FV. 
http://tinyurl.com/9f7r2

Dr. Venema on the FV:
http://tinyurl.com/949oe










[Edited on 1-27-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 27, 2006)

Here is J. Ligon Duncan's comment on the FV controversy and who should be spending time "in it."


> One question that ought to be asked is who should read this book, or anything else for that matter on the Federal Vision? Well, obviously ministers and professors need at least some passing acquaintance with the issue if they are to be of help to folks struggling with these topics. This volume provides, for that purpose, a good one-stop resource. When Guy Waters´ _Covenant Theology Improved?_ (P&R, forthcoming) appears later this year it will furnish a nice companion to this compilation. Ministerial students too will benefit from hearing both sides in their own words. However, material on the Federal Vision is not something that I would recommend to congregants (unless there is some special circumstance). Better that the laity feed upon healthy food and more edifying subjects. For as Cal Beisner observes: "œExtensive study of [Federal Vision proponents´] oral and written teachings on the special concerns of the Federal Vision convinces me that they have taught, alongside some wonderful truths, some serious errors about covenant theology and its implications for salvation, personal and corporate spirituality and piety, the use and understanding of the sacraments and the conduct of theology and biblical studies in general. Sadly, their mistakes undermine their very laudable goals. Their attempt to assure tender souls who doubt their salvation while they trust in Christ collapses and the poor souls are left more confused than before, because the objectivity of the covenant is inadequate to the task"”while the presumptuous, who hear that aspect of their message may be led, inadvertently, to the false assurance of formalism. At the same time, their attempt to destroy the complacency of the presumptuous is in profound danger of promoting a false legalistic notion of works righteousness."
> 
> 
> > > Review: _The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision._ Edited by E. Calvin Beisner. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004. 331 pp. $16.00. Reviewed by J. Ligon Duncan III, Ph.D., Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS (PCA), and Adjunct Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary. Dr. Duncan is also presently Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America, and President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. From _The Confessional Presbyterian_ v. 1. (2005) 183.
> ...


----------



## Peter (Jan 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Federal Vision = Romanist Presbyterians, aloof from the traditional Reformed faith and Christian orthodoxy.
> 
> The simple explanation being the most profound one.



 Popery continues to prove its the world's foremost problem.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 27, 2006)

Here's an article from the Trinity Foundation.
Federal Vision by David Engelsma 
_(original published in the November 2005 issue of The Protestant Reformed Theological Journal)_


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 1, 2006)

I got this email a couple of days ago and the following is a great deal for anyone needing to get up to speed on what's going on in many P&R denominations and some ammo to counter this false gospel.



Dear Friends,

As the controversy over the doctrine of justification heats up in Presbyterian and Reformed churches, it is imperative that every Christian become better informed, for he will be called upon to make judgments about both men and ideas.

To aid you in becoming informed, we are offering a collection of 9 books and 5 lectures at an unbeatable price: $70. The list price of these items is over $110. Here is what you get in The Federal Vision Package:

Lectures by Dr. Robbins:

1. The Doctrine of Revelation
2. The Doctrine of Justification
3. The Theology of N. T. Wright
4. The Theology of Richard Gaffin & Norman Shepherd
5. Auburn Avenue Theology

Books by various authors:

The Changing of the Guard, Mark W. Karlberg
The Current Justification Controversy, O. Palmer Robertson
A Companion to The Current Justification Controversy, John W. Robbins
The Everlasting Righteousness, Horatius Bonar
God's Hammer, Gordon H. Clark
Justification by Faith Alone, Charles Hodge
Not Reformed at All: Medievalism in "Reformed" Churches, John Robbins and Sean Gerety
What Is Saving Faith? Gordon H. Clark
Christianity & Neo-Liberalism, Paul M. Elliott

If you order the Federal Vision Package during February, we will pay the shipping to any U. S. address.

Simply mail your check for $70 to The Trinity Foundation, POB 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692. Or purchase the Package on line at our website, Collection 13: The Ronald W. Taber Memorial Lectures 2005, The Justification Controversy.

Thank you very much, and God bless you as you study his Gospel.

Cordially,

John Robbins
January 31, 2006
www.trinityfoundation.org


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 1, 2006)

"There are at bottom but two types of religious thought in the world--if we may improperly use the term "religious" for both of them. There is the religion of faith; there is the "religion" of works. Calvinism is the pure embodiment of the former of these; what is known in Church History as Pelagianism is the pure embodiment of the latter of them. All other forms of "religious" teaching which have been known in Christendom are but unstable attempts at compromise between the two [ed. - such as Arminianism]. At the opening of the fifth century, the two fundamental types came into direct conflict in remarkably pure form as embodied in the two persons of Augustine and Pelagius. Both were expending themselves in seeking to better the lives of men. But Pelagius in his exhortations threw men back on themselves; they were able, he declared, to do all that God demanded of them--otherwise God would not have demanded it. Augustine on the contrary pointed them in their weakness to God; "He himself," he said, in his pregnant speech, "He himself is our power." The one is the "religion" of proud self-dependence; the other is the religion of dependence on God. The one is the "religion" of works; the other is the religion of faith. The one is not "religion" at all--it is mere moralism; the other is all that is in the world that deserves to be called religion. Just in proportion as this attitude of faith is present in our thought, feeling, life, are we religious. When it becomes regnant in our thought, feeling, life, then are we truly religious. Calvinism is that type of thinking in which it has become regnant."

- B. B. Warfield
http://qqohelet.tripod.com/bbw_calv.htm

Sometimes it's difficult to assess whether a Doug Wilson (and other similar types) just is not currently able to understand the religion of faith, to use Warfield's language in the passage above, or if he is being willfully mischievous with Reformed doctrine. He frankly gives evidence of both, but even if he is purely innocent of mischief he is guilty of arrogance: for a pastor who champions the local church and church discipline why does he write off all the criticism of him and his formulations by so many men of the Reformed faith - not to mention the historic Reformed confessions - with real standing in the church? 

The doctrine of Auburn Avenue, Federal Vision, and New Perspective very much do have their origin in similar historical influences (theonomy, Shepherd, Wright, several movements and individuals, several probings of current weaknesses among Reformed Christians, finding what works, consolidating movements over time, etc.). Basically, though, they all want to make of the Reformed faith - which is apostolic, biblical doctrine - Roman Catholicism. Instead of swimming the Tiber they are playing the role of fifth columnists. 

Their doctrine is very similar to this: American communists called themselves democrats, and they did it by portraying themselves as more democratic than any other democrats; i.e. they and only they actually take being a democrat seriously; they are so democratic and believe in liberty to such a degree that they see that true liberty is communism. 

These people are Romanists calling themselves Calvinists. They believe in grace so much that they can't abide a covenant of works (as if they are antithetical, but they have to have some whacked starting point, and most Reformed, Calvinist Christians can't see them working at the level of denying the Covenant of Works and see what that means, so it is enough cover for them). They are too 'grace pure' for such a notion of a Covenant of Works. This, of course, effectually destroys biblical doctrine (which is their motive) and turns Calvinism into Romanism.

Just look for the obvious 'fruit'. Defense of baptistmal regeneration for instance. This denies the effectual work of the Word and the Spirit and places man in the place of God. Roman Catholicism. 

Of course, pin them down on baptismal regeneration and they'll flat out lie to you. The only time I've seen Wilson tell the direct truth was when he was questioned whether he agreed with the Westminster Confession of Faith and he said he didn't agree that a Covenant of Works exists. 

Their all sophists, exploiting the fact that Reformed Doctrine wasn't complete in its necessary terminology and formulation at the time of the Reformation (which is why the Reformed confessions are so valuable and necessary), and in that they self-identify as Calvinists (or Reformed), to whatever degree, they are classic wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 1, 2006)

Having said the above, heretics do provide a valuable function at times. They challenge God's elect to not only learn the truth but to learn to defend the truth. They challenge God's elect to find out why you believe what you believe. It is spiritual warfare. They play the negative role, but as Jesus said, woe to those who play that negative role...

[Edited on 2-1-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------

