Aa/fv/npp

[Paleoconservatarian]

In my study of Covenant Theology, I have come across the controversy over the new perspective on Paul, federal vision, and Auburn Avenue theology. I'm not sure I understand a whole lot of it, but there seems to be something funny going on. The h-word (heresy) is flying about, hitting guys who I have always understood to be orthodox, and a whole lot of misunderstanding seems to be going on between the two (or more) sides. What are your thoughts on the controversy?

 

[msortwell]

In my study of Covenant Theology, I have come across the controversy over the new perspective on Paul, federal vision, and Auburn Avenue theology. I'm not sure I understand a whole lot of it, but there seems to be something funny going on. The h-word (heresy) is flying about, hitting guys who I have always understood to be orthodox, and a whole lot of misunderstanding seems to be going on between the two (or more) sides. What are your thoughts on the controversy?

In an attempt to identify some of the key concerns that some have raised regarding the Federal Vision, I am providing an excerpt from a letter to the Louisiana Presbytery tasked with reviewing the situation and that issued a report upon the same. The letter seeks to identify ways in which the letter’s authors believed that the Louisiana Presbytery’s report fell short or lacked the necessary clarity. The letter, as well as the Presbytery’s full report can be viewed at http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/Colloquium/

I will offer my comments on the enclosed excerpts when time allows. The excerpt from the cited letter follows:

To: Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America, in care of TE Stanley Pace,
Moderator (StanleyPace@hotmail.com) and RE Dale Peacock, Stated Clerk
(mdpeacock@netzero.net) and the Presbytery’s Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision
Theology, in care of TE Howard Davis, Chairman (HQDavis@yahoo.com)
From: Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, RE; Rev. Christopher A. Hutchinson, TE; Rev. Richard D. Phillips,
TE; Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, TE; Rev. Carl D. Robbins, TE; Dr. Morton H. Smith, TE; Dr. R.
Fowler White, TE
Subject: Your Final Report and Recommendations on Federal Vision Theology and Rev. Steve Wilkins
Date: July 27, 2005

In his 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference lecture, “Covenant and Baptism,” Mr. Wilkins said: “when we say . . . ‘Look to your baptism,’ we’re talking about looking to Christ in the covenant, and realizing what you can know for certain. You cannot know if you were ever sincere. You cannot know if you really meant it when you asked Jesus into your heart and threw the pine cone into the fire. You can’t know those. Those questions are unanswerable. Were you really given a new heart? Well, you can’t answer that question. God knows. You don’t know. What you can know is that you have been baptized and you have the Lord’s Supper.” Shortly he added that this view helps pastorally in that “It makes our standing before God and that of our infallible sign and seal of this . . . . And in regard to our assurance, we are pointed away from ourselves and what we think we perceive to be true of us inwardly, which no one can know, and pointed to Christ, the only ground of our assurance.”

We assert that Mr. Wilkins’s statements cited here entail by good and necessary consequence that all who are baptized in water will be eternally saved. We know and are grateful that Mr. Wilkins denies that consequence. But the fact remains that he wrote as he did, and we believe the Committee and Presbytery should call on Mr. Wilkins to retract some of what he wrote in light of its necessary consequence.

We believe that the reason Mr. Wilkins can have written as he did and yet can in all honesty and sincerity deny the necessary consequence of it is that in doing so he inadvertently equivocated on the terms covenant and in Christ. Because his statements occur in a context in which he is discussing salvation and assurance of salvation, the primary sense of covenant and in Christ that appears to have been in his mind was of being in the covenant of grace made “with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed” (LC 31) and of being in Christ in the sense in which Paul used the term in Ephesians to denote a saving relationship. But when he then denies the consequence of his statements–that consequence being that therefore all who are baptized are eternally saved–the primary sense of covenant and in Christ in his mind has changed to the earthly, temporal covenant and that union with Christ that entails nothing more than membership in the visible church. We suggest that this insight might help Mr. Wilkins to clarify his intentions and compose new public statements to correct the mistaken impressions fostered by his earlier statements.

[The Louisiana Presbytery Report] does not notice that what Mr. Wilkins affirms belongs to every baptized person–“all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places,” with Mr. Wilkins’s own enumeration of such based on Ephesians 1 and 1 Corinthians–is nothing if it is not precisely that: “a vital, internalized relationship with the Lord.”

 

[ReformedAnglican]

The "New Perspective" and the "h" word definitely belong in the same sentence!

 

[heymikey80]

The "New Perspective" and the "h" word definitely belong in the same sentence!

Um, you just accused the Bishop of Durham of heresy, I take it? I would've thought ... that tends to oppose at least the Presbyterian understanding of due consideration for superiors.

Some in the New Perspective are definitely heretical. Some aren't. Wright and Hay I would definitely reserve judgement on at this point.

I have seen (and opposed) so many allegations about Wright that were bald-faced lies directly opposing his explicit statements now, that I despair of my mentor denomination ever rising above the controversy. It would destroy too many reputations among their theologians.

So for me, the controversy has only corrupted the theologians.

Wright isn't perfect. He makes some mistakes like every human being. I think his mistakes pale in comparison with the profound points he makes.

 

[ReformedAnglican]

Um, you just accused the Bishop of Durham of heresy, I take it?

Absolutely! He denies the imputed righteousness of Christ!!

 

[heymikey80]

Absolutely! He denies the imputed righteousness of Christ!!

Hm, I wouldn't go that far. At least I haven't seen Wright do it. Wright objects that Paul doesn't have a view of imputation. Wright also objects that Paul distinguishes between God's righteousness and the righteousness we receive from God.

He definitely doesn't deny that we receive righteousness that saves from our union with Christ. In fact he also affirms Pp 3:9 explicitly as conferring "righteousness from God".

And not that I agree with his view in all facets. He's said the view of "forensic exchange" is not to be found in Paul. "Paul doesn't comment on it either way" -- which would leave the doctrine itself in limbo -- not denied. Does it appear in John? How about Peter? (Me, I disagree. I think Paul does illustrate our salvation as an exchange set up along imputational lines. He even uses the classic "exchange" term: agoradzo.) But neither Paul nor Wright stops there. The imputation concepts result from Paul's idea of union with Christ. And I have to say Wright's got a point there. I really feel we need to stand up & take notice of it.

The view of imputation Wright constantly snipes at is one of forensic exchange without organic union. I've run into that, too. It's a popular view in my area, one that creates the "free grace" conflict as well as the relative suppressing of the need for gathering with one another.

Wright builds an integrated view retaining aspects we'd call imputation (using Paul's more narrow "reckoning" word, instead). This exchange lives under a different name from "imputation" in Paul: it lives under "reckoning" & "in Christ", ie, union. That's what Wright's saying, as far as I can tell.

For what it's worth.