Auburn ave

[Swampguy]

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

 

[Civbert]

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]

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)



The following is a revised edition of our statement. We have been greatly blessed by the discussions, disagreements, and questions that have been raised about our initial statement. It was intended as a "œsummary" of our views and never intended to be anything other than a summary of our views (i.e., it was not intended to erect some new standard of orthodoxy or to imply that we were settled on these points and could not be challenged or dissuaded from them, and it was certainly not intended to erect another wall to divide the Church or as a means to denounce or exclude from fellowship our brothers who might disagree with us). These statements represent some degree of theological exploration in regard to the significance and meaning of covenant, baptism, and in the way we think of salvation. This revision is a response to the critique and instruction we have received and is an effort to make our position more clear and (we trust) more easily understood. We continue to study and learn and continue to be open to further correction and instruction.



1. Salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not of works. It is founded upon the obedience, death, and resurrection of the faithful Second Adam, Jesus Christ. Justification is an act of God´s free grace wherein sinners are accepted as righteous in God´s sight by virtue of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone (WSC Q. 33). This justifying faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces and virtues (WCF 11.2). Justifying faith, therefore, is never vain but one that works by love (Gal. 5:6).



2. From before the foundation of the world, God has sovereignly chosen a multitude no man can number for salvation. The basis of His election was solely His grace and mercy and nothing in the creature. The number of the elect can neither increase nor diminish. All who were chosen by God from the beginning will be surely saved eternally. Not one will be lost.



3. God works out His eternal decree of salvation in history by means of His covenant. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of the covenant. This is why covenant members are addressed consistently as God´s elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves in the end not to have been among the number of those whom God decreed to eternal salvation from before the foundation of the world. Thus, the basis for calling them God´s "œelect" was their standing as members of the Church (which is the body of Christ) and not some knowledge of God´s secret decree. The visible Church is the place where the saints are "œgathered and perfected" by means of "œthe ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3).



We cannot separate covenant and election, but, to do full justice to the Biblical teaching, we must distinguish them. Following the Biblical model, it seems that we must view fellow church members as elect and regenerate and, at the same time, hold before them the dangers of falling away. This does not contradict the decretal/eternal perspective, because our knowledge of God´s decree is only creaturely. We can never, in this life, know with absolute certainty who are elect unto final salvation. For this reason, we have to make judgments and declarations in terms of what has been revealed, namely, the covenant (Deut. 29:29). The covenant is the visible, historical context in which the eternal decree of election comes to eventual fruition.



4. This covenant is made with believers and their children (Acts 2:39; WLC Q. 166). It is publicly manifested in the Church, the body of Christ to which we are solemnly admitted by means of baptism (WCF 28.1). The Church is not merely a human community, and the Church´s enactments of the means of grace are not merely human works. God works through the administration of the sacraments by the power of His Spirit and His word of promise (WCF 27.3). The Church herself is God´s new creation, the city He promised to build for Abraham. The Church is not merely a means to salvation, a stepping-stone to a more ultimate goal. Rather, the Church herself is the historic manifestation of God´s salvation (WCF 25.1,2), the partially-realized goal in history that will be brought to final fulfillment at the last day. When someone is united to the Church by baptism, he is incorporated into Christ and into His body; he becomes bone of Christ´s bone and flesh of His flesh (Eph. 5:30). He becomes a member of "œthe house, family, and kingdom of God" (WCF 25.2). Until and unless that person breaks covenant, he is to be reckoned among God´s elect and regenerate saints.



5. Those who have been solemnly admitted to the Church by baptism (WCF 28.1) are bound to receive and rest upon Christ by faith, repenting of their sins, yielding obedience to his commands, making diligent use of the outward means of grace, and thereby persevering by faith to the end of their days. This perseverance is itself a gift of God and not a result of the "œwilling" or the "œrunning" of the people of God.



6. God uses means by which His Spirit works salvation in the hearts of His elect: the preaching of the Word, the faithful administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s Supper, and the communion of the saints (WSC #85,88,91). These means have been entrusted to the Church (WCF 25.3). By these, through the blessing of the Spirit, the Church becomes the "œmother of all believers" (Gal. 4:26). Apart from the Church and its ministry of these means of grace, there is ordinarily no salvation (WCF 25.2).



7. By baptism, one enters into covenantal union with Christ and is offered all his benefits (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; 2 Cor. 1:20). As Westminster Shorter Catechism #94 states, baptism signifies and seals "œour ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace." Baptism in itself does not, however, guarantee final salvation. What is offered in baptism may not be received because of unbelief. Or, it may only be embraced for a season and later rejected (Matt. 13:20-22; Luke 8:13-14). Those who "œbelieve for a while" enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by its eventual failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6). By their unbelief they "œtrample underfoot the Son of God, count the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite to the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29) and thus bring greater condemnation upon themselves.



8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ´s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit in his common operations through Word and Sacrament (Hebrews 6:4-6; Matthew 25:14ff; etc.).



9. Salvation depends upon being united to Christ. Clearly, those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God. There are those, however, who are joined to Him as branches in the vine, but who because of unbelief are barren and fruitless and consequently are cut off from the vine and from salvation. Jesus says these "œbelieve for a while" but do not bear fruit unto salvation. Why God would do this is a mystery, but the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom He adopts into covenant relation, He later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). In such instances God has not changed His decree regarding such people; to the contrary, He carries out His sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion. Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God.



10. Once baptized, an individual may be truly called a "œChristian" because he is a member of the household of faith and the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). However, not all who are "œChristians" in this sense will persevere to the end. Some will "œfall from grace" and be lost (Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). Though the difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who "œbelieve for a while" is not merely one of duration (i.e., God works "œeffectually" in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief), the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect, and even uses the same language for both.



For example, the same language that describes the Spirit coming upon Saul (1 Sam. 10:6) is used when the Spirit comes upon David (1 Sam. 16:13), Gideon (Jdg. 6:34), Jephthah (Jdg. 11:29), and Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 9; 15:14). Yet in four of these five cases (David, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), the man in question was clearly given persevering faith and brought to final salvation by the Spirit´s work (cf. Heb. 11:32). The Biblical narrative, however, appears to draw no distinction between Saul´s initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those who obtained final salvation. While God, no doubt, predestined Saul´s apostasy (since He foreordains all that comes to pass), God was not the author of Saul´s apostasy (cf. WCF 3.1). Saul seems to receive the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in faith received, but he did not persevere in that grace. Though this was according to God´s eternal decree and though God could surely have preserved him in faith, Saul fell in unbelief. The responsibility for his failure, however, is his alone. Saul´s failure to persevere was due to his own rebellion. Herein lies the great mystery of God´s sovereignty and human responsibility (cf. WCF 3.1, 8). [1]



11. None of those elect unto final salvation can lose that salvation, however much he may backslide (John 10; WCF 17). God preserves all those whom He has chosen to eternal salvation in covenant faithfulness. The Biblical language regarding salvation, however, is more complicated. Sometimes the term "œsalvation" is used in an eschatological sense with reference to its ultimate goal of eternal life. In that eschatological and final sense, of course, it would be most improper to speak of anyone "œlosing their salvation." All whom God has ordained to eternal life will surely be saved. But there is also another sense in which all those in the covenant are "œsaved." They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation of Christ (thus, the Scripture speaks of those who had "œknown the way of righteousness," "œbeen cleansed from their former sins," "œhave tasted of the heavenly gift," etc.), but not all will persevere in that "œsalvation." [2] Jesus spoke of those in the new covenant who were united to Him, but then cut off because they did not persevere in the fruit-bearing that is the evidence of a lively faith, by which we abide in Christ (John 15). Whatever the precise complexion and content of that union for those who do not persevere, nonetheless, if Jesus Himself is salvation, must we not conclude that being cut off from Him means being cut off the from source of salvation and, in that specific sense, from salvation itself?



12. The Bible often speaks of salvation in relational and covenantal categories. "œSalvation" is a matter of being rightly related to God through Christ. But relationships are not static, unchanging entities. They are fluid and dynamic. Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage. If we continue to rest upon Christ in faith, we will live with Him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, He will divorce us. It is probably unwise and pastorally inept, especially for tender consciences, to speak of this in terms of "œlosing one´s salvation," but it seems contrary to Scripture to say that nothing at all is lost. To draw such a conclusion appears to deny the reality of the covenant and the blessedness that is said to belong even to those who ultimately prove themselves reprobate (Heb. 10:26ff).



13. With this understanding, the "œfive points of Calvinism" are still preserved, but they have been enriched by a nuanced covenant theology following the tradition and teaching of Augustine and Calvin. Framing the issues in this way, in no way compromises God´s absolute sovereignty and gracious initiative in salvation. At the same time, however, it holds covenant breakers accountable for their apostasy. As such, this position appears to uphold the Scripture´s teaching on the nature of the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments together with the genuineness of the covenantal promises and threats. Moreover, it does so in a way that is fully consistent with Reformed and Westminsterian theology. This is not to say that it is the only way in which the fullness of Reformed and biblical doctrine may be maintained. Nevertheless, on this understanding of the application of God´s sovereign and covenantal grace, we lose nothing affirmed by our Westministerian tradition and yet maintain a rich, workable, and pastorally useful understanding of how the sovereign God applies His salvation in history.
_____________________



Endnotes



1. We recognize, as the Canons of Dort point out, that the difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who "œbelieve for a while" is not merely one of duration. God does work "œeffectually" in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief. In this sense, we may say that there are things which are true of the "œelect" which are never true of the reprobate. But these distinctions normally manifest themselves over time and, thus, are impossible to recognize at the beginnings of one´s Christian experience within the visible Church. As they manifest themselves over time, they certainly become a matter for concern and pastoral care, exhortation, and intervention, as we continually call people to faith and repentance. But it is only in the face of final apostasy that we can know with certainty who was and was not "œeffectually called."



In their reading of Heb. 6:4-5, some theologians try to draw subtle distinctions to make highly refined psychological differences between blessings that do not secure eternal salvation and true regeneration, which does. For at least two reasons, it is highly unlikely the writer had such distinctions in mind. First, it is by no means certain that those who have received the blessings listed in 6:4-5 will fall away. The writer merely holds it out as a possibility, a danger of which they must beware. In fact, he expects these people to persevere (6:9). If, however, the blessings catalogued imply something less than regeneration, and these people might persevere after all, we are put in the awkward position of saying that non-regenerate persons persevered to the end (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1)! Second, the illustration immediately following the warning in 6:7-8 indicates these people have received some kind of new life. Otherwise, the plant metaphor makes no sense. The question raised does not concern the nature of the grace received in the past (i.e., real regeneration vs. merely common operations of the Spirit), but whether or not the one who has received this grace will persevere.



Thus, Hebrews 6 does not call upon us to develop two psychologies of conversion and faith, one for the "œtruly regenerate" and one for the temporary believer destined to apostatize. Nor does it call upon sinners to discern their own deceitful and inconstant hearts, for even the elect would fall away were it not for the continued grace of God (cf. Canons of Dort, 5th Head, Articles 3 & 8; cf WCF 17.2). Rather, Hebrews calls upon us to turn from ourselves and to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:1ff). Such a faith perseveres and bears fruit in keeping with repentance.



2. Illustrations of this abound in the Scripture: In Jude (5) the Israelites are said to have been "œsaved" and then destroyed, because they did not persevere. In the preface to the Ten Commandments Israel is addressed as God´s redeemed people. However, many of those who were "œredeemed" did not continue trusting their Deliverer and perished. Peter (2 Peter 2) speaks of a similar class of people. Redeemed by Christ, they then deny Him and are destroyed. All of these are given as warnings to new covenant believers lest they follow these examples of apostasy. Paul specifically says the record of the Israelites who failed to persevere and were destroyed was "œwritten for our admonition" in the new covenant era (I Cor. 10:11).



Summary: God, in eternity past, elected in Christ a great multitude to salvation. This election was wholly gracious and unconditional, having its source only in the free mercy and good pleasure of God. In the fullness of time, the Father sent His Son to die as the propitiatory substitute for those whom He elected to eternal salvation. The atoning work of the Son is fully sufficient for their salvation and completely accomplished their redemption. The Holy Spirit works in these same chosen ones to apply Christ´s saving work to them and to keep them faithful to the Savior their entire lives. Because of the hardness of their hearts, this work of grace must be, ultimately, irresistible. No one chosen to eternal salvation can be lost, and no non-elect person can attain eternal salvation.



God´s eternal decree to gather His elect into a people for His name is worked out in history. Election is in no way a "œprocess" nor is it at all dependent upon our obedience either foreseen or actual, but it does becomes manifest in the administration of Word and Sacrament as one responds to the preached gospel and enters the Church in baptism. Christ is present in His Church by His Spirit to see to it that all His elect ones are brought to faith in Him.



God, however, mysteriously has chosen to draw some into the covenant community who are not elect unto eternal salvation. These non-elect covenant members are truly brought to Christ, united to Him in the Church by baptism and receive various gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. Corporately, they are part of the chosen, redeemed, Spirit-indwelt people. Sooner or later, however, in the wise counsel of God, these fail to bear fruit and fall away. In some sense, they were really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ´s blood, really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit. God, however, has chosen not to uphold them in the faith, and all is lost. They break the gracious new covenant they entered into at baptism.



Thus, the covenant is a true revelation of God´s salvation, for, in the covenant community, all God´s people, even those who are only temporarily counted among their number, find gracious blessings. The covenant really is gospel-good news-through and through. Yet only those who, by faith alone, continue to persevere in the covenant, trusting and resting upon the Lord of covenant, inherit final salvation. Those who fall away lose the temporary covenantal blessings they had enjoyed. Ultimately, this is because God decreed that these covenant breakers would not share in the eschatological salvation of Christ. Of course, these apostates cannot blame God for their falling away. It is their own fault, since God´s overtures of love towards them in the context of the covenant were sincere. Conversely, those who do persevere to the end cannot claim any credit or make any boast. All they have done has been because of God´s grace which preserved them and kept them faithful.



All covenant members are invited to attain to a full and robust confidence that they are God´s eternally elect ones. Starting with their baptisms, they have every reason to believe God loves them and desires their eternal salvation. Baptism marks them out as God´s elect people, a status they maintain so long as they persevere in faithfulness. By looking to Christ alone, the preeminently elect One, the One who kept covenant to the end and is the Author and Finisher of the faith of God´s people, they may find infallible assurance (WCF 18.1-2). Those who take their eyes off Christ in unbelief, who desert the Church where His presence is found, will find that their false hopes and carnal presumptions have perished (WCF 18.1), having made a shipwreck of their faith and proven themselves to have received the grace of God in vain.



Unanimously adopted by the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on April 3, 2005.

 

[wsw201]

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

 

[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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

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]

"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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
They are interested in re-definition, not re-formation...

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 irresistibly bring predestination to final fruition, and they still believe that God will infallibly preserve those He has chosen.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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.

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]

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]

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.