2010 Auburn Ave. Conference

[Cajun Huguenot]

This years conference is titled, The Necessity of the Reformation. If anyone is interested you can get the audio files by following the link.

I am downloading them now so that I can hear them for the first time.

Kenith

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Very cool! Thankya brother.

 

[bradfordl]

This is the epicenter of the Federal Vision heresy, NRB. Not so cool. Note that it is no longer a PCA congregation. There is a very good reason for that.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

This is the epicenter of the Federal Vision heresy, NRB. Not so cool. Note that it is no longer a PCA congregation. There is a very good reason for that.

I'm against Federal Vision (along with the NPP) but I must add, things such as this are very interesting to me.
That's why I said "cool".

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

First: While I admit Federal Vision is controversial, and would readily admit that Auburn Ave is the epicenter of the controversy, believe the word "heresy" is gross mis- characterization.

I do believe the FV proponents started a controversy to get people to look at what they were saying. The major combatants on BOTH sides have been for too quick to call names and not listen to what was being said by the other side.

This controversy is akin to the Van Til/Clark debate that ripped through the Reformed community several decades back. There was lots of heat and name calling then and today Clark and Van Till have passed on to their reward. Their defenders and proponents have (mostly) ceased shooting flaming, imprecatory arrows back an forth and accept the other sides as Reformed brethren after all.

I believe the same will happen here. The VF folks have some useful insights and criticisms. They have also gone to far in some of what they said, which brought on this fight, but they have NEVER come close to what their critics accuse them off.

Louisiana Presbytery had cleared Steve Wilkins. The former pastor of my church was the cheit antagonist to Wilkins in our Presbytery, when I discussed the issue with him, he pointed me to John Robbins' writing. The late Robbins was a (the?) chief warrior on the Clark side of the old war, and he was a well practiced bomb thrower in that old Clark/Van Til war. The FV folks were more from the Van Til side of the old war. Robbins never met a doctrine that, if not 100% to his liking, he was not willing to castigate.

I am still in Louisiana Presbytery. I still believe that Louisiana Presbytery got it right. Regretfully Auburn Avenue left PCA because they were getting weary of the battle and (IMHO) there was a "Witch Hunt" mentality that had grown up in the PCA. Rightly or Wrongly they decided to move to the CREC.

This action cooled the issue and the witch hunt has died down in the PCA. It will be a while yet before folks on either side will calm down an be able to reason together. I think the whole issue is a sad example of how Christians should NOT treat one another.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[bradfordl]

In a speech at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference, John Baruch taught that every one who is baptized is “in Christ.” The “efficacy of baptism” results in communion with the triune God for every baptized person. “Every baptized person,” said Rev. Baruch, “is in Christ and shares in His life.”

John Baruch told his audience at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference that “Jesus died for every baptized member of the congregation, head for head.” He denied that this was merely a judgment of charity.

One can only fall away, they say, if once he was actually, savingly in Christ. Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10, they assert, are real warnings about a real possibility for every member of the church without exception. Rev. Wilkins emphasized this in a speech on “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” at the colloquium at Knox Seminary.

"Those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God…. The apostate doesn’t forfeit “apparent blessings” that were never his in reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God" (emphasis, Wilkins’).
​

I don't know how you can 'talk past' these quotes. They are a brick wall of heresy. FV is a backdoor re-insertion of pelagian soteriology into the Church.

​

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I don't know how you can 'talk past' these quotes. They are a brick wall of heresy. FV is a backdoor re-insertion of pelagian soteriology into the Church.

​

Brafordl,

I appreciate your comment and I think I can explain a few things that "may" clear things up. The FV folk view is not heretical and is no where close to pelagianism. What it is is a very nuanced understanding of the concept of "Covenant" and that nuanced understanding, to be understood, needs to be viewed by following the idea of Covenant as developed from the Old Covenant forward.

In the Old covenant all people born into the Covenant were the people of God, but at the same time those born into the covenant who did not have faith were not His people. You could be a Jew and not be a Jew at the same time. That is why "For they are not all Israel,which are of Israel" and at the same time "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit in circumcision? Great in every respect..."

All Israelites were the people of God and yet some Israelites were not Israelites. Were all Jews Jews? Yes and no. Was there a benefit to being born a Jew or born of the circumcision? Paul says emphatically yes or "great in respect" or to use the NKJV, "Much in every way!"

The FV understand the New Covenant the same way. All people born in the Church are Christian in the sense that they are born into God's covenant and this is a great advantage to them (us) just as being born an Israelite was an advantage to the Israelites of the Old Covenant. Did (does) this guarantee salvation? No, You can be an Israelite (outwardly) and not an Israelite (inwardly) at the same time.

The FV folk say the same is true in the New Covenant. All born and baptised in the Church are in covenant (like outward Israel) and not be of the Church (inwardly). They are NOT Baptist who limit the term Christian or "in Covenant" to true believers only. They would argue that the Scripture uses the terms Christian or saint or brethren, elect, etc... in the broad sense which includes all who have been baptised (and not excommunicated). They would say the Scriptures also use the term in the narrow sense that limits those terms to those who "persevere to the end" and will be with Christ in Glory.

Many have reacted to this nuanced use of these terms. I personally believe that this is because we have been influenced by more Baptist type thinking that is not comfortable with the more nuanced use of these biblical terms.

I believe the FV folks started out purposefully writing in a to raise eyebrows, but by the time they tried to write/argue more clearly the witch hunt had begun and it was too late for them to explain things, because opposing views had hardened and minds were made up in opposition.

I believe the FV folks were trying to start a fight to get attention to what they were saying. It was a fight that never should have happened. I believe FV folks miscalculated the response to them, and when they tried to clear things up it was way too late.

The FV folks are not pelagians, they are Calvinists and they are solidly Reformed. There are now and have always been several branches of Reformed Christianity and FV, like Christian Reconstruction, is a well inside the Reformed faith. I believe they are minority positions within Reformational Christianity, but they are still well inside that branch of the faith.

That is how I see this.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[bradfordl]

Kenith,

What you are presenting as the FV view is an orthodox view of the covenant, but that is NOT what they are presenting. Yes, baptised members are members of the visible, outward covenant, and the confessions agree with that. But "not all Israel are of Israel. The FV position delineated in much of their literature is that all baptised ARE all of Israel, until they blow it. The quotes above concerning the efficacy of baptism and the apostate losing 'real blessings' prove this. The orthodox, biblical, reformed view is that they never were the recipients of real blessings, that they never really were 'of Israel', only imposters. This position that the apostate are full-fledged, forgiven, atoned-for members of the Bride of Christ until they blow it is full-blown pelagianism.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

What you would like to believe about folks that are dear to you is immaterial, Kenith. What they are propogating as truth is the crux, and that is plainly heresy. You might feel bad for them, but acquiescing to or apologizing for their error is not loving them. Love would entail confronting them in love, then rejecting them openly if they will not hear. The semi-pelagians were doing the same thing you are, trying to ameliorate their friend Pelagius' error, and all they did was create a different error. That tactic doesn't work. What does the scripture say?

Tit 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.