Auburn Avenue theology (Federal Vision)

[johnny_redeemed]

Anyone around here hold to Auburn Avenue theology (Federal Vision)??

[StJohnCalvin]

I would check the articles about it on www.monergism.com (http://www.monergism.com) and see what Dr. James R. White has to say about it www.aomin.org (http://www.aomin.org) . Both groups have addressed this issue in depth. God Bless.

[johnny_redeemed]

I would check the articles about it on www.monergism.com (http://www.monergism.com) and see what Dr. James R. White has to say about it www.aomin.org (http://www.aomin.org) . Both groups have addressed this issue in depth. God Bless.

I am familiar with the teachings and ideas of the Federal vision. I was looking for conversation with someone who holds these views. It is hard at time to see what a group teaches if we only look at critiques of it. Image if I asked if there were any Calvinists and someone came on and said, “Yea, go see Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler… they have handled Calvinism.”

I am not saying that monergism of AOMin. have done a horrible job of addressing the issue to the degree Hunt and Geisler have…I just want to hear what the horse has to say, from the horses moth.

[Iosias]

No I don't hold to it, I am not sure what it is. :)

[johnny_redeemed]

No I don't hold to it, I am not sure what it is. :)

If you want to learn a bit about it check out the links that were given.

[Paleoconservatarian]

I am familiar with the teachings and ideas of the Federal vision. I was looking for conversation with someone who holds these views. It is hard at time to see what a group teaches if we only look at critiques of it. Image if I asked if there were any Calvinists and someone came on and said, “Yea, go see Dave Hunt and Norman Geisler… they have handled Calvinism.”

I am not saying that monergism of AOMin. have done a horrible job of addressing the issue to the degree Hunt and Geisler have…I just want to hear what the horse has to say, from the horses moth.

The horse, he speaks a different language. But I don't think you'll find too many FV'ers here. I don't know if you'll find any conversation with FV here, but you can find some material directly from FV'ers here: http://www.paulperspective.com/page2.html

[heymikey80]

The horse, he speaks a different language. But I don't think you'll find too many FV'ers here. I don't know if you'll find any conversation with FV here, but you can find some material directly from FV'ers here: http://www.paulperspective.com/page2.html
Federal Vision, or New Perspective on Paul?

I'm more sympathetic to NPP. They're two different movements. Wilson's a clear example that FV and NPP are very different things: he's opposed to NPP.

I'm not a fan of FV. Still, I know people who are sympathetic with FV. For that matter, my old OPC church actually recommended some people inside FV -- Doug Wilson again comes to mind.

For what it's worth, I started reading NT Wright simply to see if what Fesko, Phillips, Duncan, and some others were accurate in what they were saying about Wright. They weren't. In fact they were often explicitly contradicted on the very pages they cited as proof of their view of Wright. Now, Wright's not always right, sometimes he's very clearly wrong. But very often what's alleged of him is not true, either.

For a free intro into some of the problems of the critiques: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html .

Here's a link to the debate over NPP three years ago.

http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1018 (http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1002)

Some of the problems:
... with Fesko's critique at the time:
http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1058
http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1059

... with Prof. Dyer's critique at the time:
http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1053

I think there's one answering Webb as well somewhere in there.

My particular view:
http://www2.pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/full_comment.taf?topic_ID=29&comment_ID=1051

[Iosias]

I had the priviledge to meet Professor Guy Prentis Waters in May at the Church Society conference where he gave a paper upon the New Perspectives on Paul. From what he said I can see the worry with this grave false teaching which undermines the true doctrine of justification. Unfortunately the Bishop of Durham which is right next to the diocese where I am is Bishop N T Wright!

Kim Riddlebarger has some good recommended reading towards the bottom of his list here: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/paul-covenant-justification/

[OldHighChurchman]

I am currently reading am article by Rich Lusk who I have just learned that he is into FV.

[Paleoconservatarian]

Federal Vision, or New Perspective on Paul?

The site addresses both. They have a page on NPP, and in the general articles they mark proponents of each by placing either (FV) or (NPP) with their names.

[heymikey80]

Well, if you really want to read the NPP people, they're at a different website:

http://www.ThePaulPage.com

And I'd suggest before people go attacking NT Wright over his interpretation of what Paul said about justification, that they read his published statement about it:

http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html

It's quite different from what's alleged about him from Kelly, Fesko, Duncan, Dyer, Webb, and a number of others.

I never welcome attacks through misinterpretation. So to be sure, there's a divide here, and it's a serious divide. But it's been twisted into departures from the facts by many conservatives. This may be why the Reformed church is finding it harder to muster enough opposition to address more serious problems in Wright's interpretation. It's just hard to rally around disingenuousness.

[Cajun Huguenot]

If you want to learn a bit about it check out the links that were given.

Actually, if you want to know what the believe read the books and articles published by those in that camp. Reading opponents is good, but it can be very misleading.

Read those who are in the camp and THEN read the critics.

Thats my two cents worth.

In Christ,
Kenith

[Cajun Huguenot]

I think HeyMikey's comments on post #7 are very good.

I personnally see a lot of hyperbole in the criticisms of Wright and the F.V. There are now, and alway have been, differences among Reformed Christians. This does not mean that we must go at each others jugular.

The FV folks can be blamed for saying things to stir the pot early on, but the response from some camps have been hysteria and not objective criticisms.

The FV people are much more "covenantal" than the average covenant theologian and they think covenant theology is slipped toward baptistic and Zwinglian thinking (especially Southern Presbyterians).

The FV folks started the rhetorical downward spiral and it was met in kind and exceeded.

I've read only one of N.T. Wrights books and my response was "hmmm - ? - What exactly was his point?"
I've read a number of his articles on the webalso and found them very interesting.

HeyMikey is correct in sayng that NPP and FV are different animals and should not be considered as the same thing.

Those are some more of my thoughts,

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[Iosias]

Do FVists hold to sacramental efficacy?

[Cajun Huguenot]

Do FVists hold to sacramental efficacy?

All non-Zwinglian Reformed Christians do, but the FV folk have pressed this a bit (but I don't think that they've gone beyound Calvin on this issue) and have gotten into a good bit of trouble on this issue.

Some of our Reformed brethren are Zwingilain on this issue and mistake Calvins views for that of "approaching" Rome.

The FV people are also sympathetic to paedo-communion. Rich Lusk (mentioned on an earlier post) has an intereisting article on that subject.

In Christ,
Kenith

[Iosias]

All non-Zwinglian Reformed Christians do, but the FV folk have pressed this a bit (but I don't think that they've gone beyound Calvin on this issue) and have gotten into a good bit of trouble on this issue.

Some of our Reformed brethren are Zwingilain on this issue and mistake Calvins views for that of "approaching" Rome.

I have been rereading the Reformed Confessions - Belgic, Heidelberg, Geneva and Helvetic - and they seem to hold to a robust view of sacramental efficacy especially the Helvetic on the Holy Supper of the Lord.

A good explanation of baptismal regeneration was posted here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25264444&postcount=20

Feel free to contribute. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this issue. :)

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have been rereading the Reformed Confessions - Belgic, Heidelberg, Geneva and Helvetic - and they seem to hold to a robust view of sacramental efficacy especially the Helvetic on the Holy Supper of the Lord.

A good explanation of baptismal regeneration was posted here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25264444&postcount=20

Feel free to contribute. I would be interested to hear what you have to say on this issue. :)

Hello AV, (Glad it' not KJV);)

Cornelius Burges (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.burges_cornelius.html), one of the more important Westminster Divines, the man who penned the Confession, and who played an important part in the committee that gave us the confession’s section on baptism wrote a (once) famous book on this subject titled Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, according to the Scriptures, and Primitive Church, the Present Reformed Churches and Many Particular Divines Apart. I know the title is a mouth full. I wish it were on the web, but it is not.

There were other divines at the Westminster Assembly who agreed with Burges on the issue of Baptismal regeneration of "elect" infants. Modern Reformed Christians need to remember that these men were highly respected Reformed pastors and theologians, who played an important part at Westminster. You have often had some Reformed Theologians that have held to a (qualified) understanding of baptismal regeneration.

I happen to have a photo-copied version of Cornelius Burges' book. It is interesting reading and very difficult reading as well. I am not yet sure what I think of it but it is an fascinating topic to look at from an older Reformed vantage point.

Here is a link to an interesting article on this subject by Dr. Joel Garver titled Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confession 28.6 (http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/sacr/wcf.htm). I think you will find it interesting.

And here is another link to another very good article on this subject:
Baptismal Efficacy and the Reformed Tradition: Past Present and Future (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/baptismal_efficacy_the_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm)by Ruch Lusk.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[Paleoconservatarian]

delete

[Cajun Huguenot]

Here are a few comments of John Calvin on Baptism. Some modern Reformed Christians would choke on a few of his statements.

That in baptism remission of sins, as well as the grace of the Holy Spirit, is offered and exhibited to us, all the pious confess. They also acknowledge that infants have need of it, not as a necessary help to salvation, but as a seal divinely appointed to seal upon them the gift of adoption. (Selected Works Vol 1, pg. 134)
The quotes below are from Treatises on the Sacraments
(http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=27253&netp_id=315751&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW#curr)by John Calvin.

For as by baptism God regenerates us to be his children, and by such spiritual birth introduces us into his Church, to make us, as it were, of his household; so in the Supper he declares to us that he wishes not to leave us unprovided, but rather to maintain us in the heavenly life till such time as we shall have attained to the perfection of it. Now, inasmuch as there is no other food for our souls than Jesus Christ, it is in him alone that we must seek life, (149)

Since it has pleased our good God to receive us by baptism into his Church, which is his house, which he desires to maintain and govern, and since he has received us to keep us not merely as domestics, but as his own children, it remains that, in order to do the office of a good father, he nourish and provide us with every thing necessary for our life. (149)

Thus, as with baptism, we are assured of the internal washing of our souls when water is given us as an attestation, its property being to cleanse corporal pollution; so in the Supper, there must be material bread to testify to us that the body of Christ is our food. (175)

Thus the sins of Paul were washed away by baptism, though they had been previously washed away. So likewise baptism was the laver of regeneration to Cornelius, though he had already received the Holy Spirit. (205)

But we, too, maintain that baptism always remains the same, be the minister or receiver who he may. The hinge of the whole controversy is simply this, — Do unbelievers become substantially partakers of the flesh of Christ?... I have openly declared, that the body of Christ is offered and given to unbelievers as well as to believers, and that the obstacle which prevents enjoyment is in themselves. (284)

He acknowledges with me that the sacraments were instituted to lead us to the communion of Christ, and be helps by which we may be engrafted into the body of Christ, or, being engrafted, be united more and more. He asks why I say that infants begotten of believers are holy and members of the Church before they are baptized? I answer, that they may grow up the more into communion with Christ. He thinks he is arguing acutely in denying that they are engrafted into the Church before baptism, if they are engrafted by baptism. I easily retort the objection. For if I am right as to the effect of the sacraments, viz., that it makes those who are already engrafted into the body of Christ to be united to him more and more, what forbids the application oft his to baptism? (311)

I admit that the proper office of baptism is to engraft us into the body of Christ, not that those who are baptized should be altogether aliens from him, but because God attests that he thus receives them. There is a well known saying of Augustine, that there are many sheep of Christ without the Church, just as there are many wolves dwelling within; in other words, those whom God invites to himself by the Spirit of adoption, were known to him before they knew him by faith.(311)

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[heymikey80]

Here are a few comments of John Calvin on Baptism.
wow. I'll have to look around and see if I can track some of those quotes down more specifically.

[Cajun Huguenot]

wow. I'll have to look around and see if I can track some of those quotes down more specifically.

There are quotes that are even more interesting and others that would surprise no one. Calvin's Treatises on the Sacraments (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=27253&netp_id=315751&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW#curr) is well worth buying. These items are also on the The Calvin CD (http://www.ageslibrary.com/ages_calvin_collection_2.html)(selected Works, vol. II).

I also recommend Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087552186X/102-1863406-8396153?v=glance&n=283155). It too reveals items of Calvin's thoughts that would make some modern Reformed (Zwinglian type) Christians very uncomfortable.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[Paleoconservatarian]

Kenith, I don't suppose that the Treatises can be found online? I'm also interested in reading Calvin's "Second Defense" in response to Joachim Westphal.

By the way, I too have read and can recommend Mathison's book.

[Cajun Huguenot]

Kenith, I don't suppose that the Treatises can be found online? I'm also interested in reading Calvin's "Second Defense" in response to Joachim Westphal.

By the way, I too have read and can recommend Mathison's book.

Hello my Paleoconservatarian friend,

They can be found on line, including Calvin's Second Defense to Westphal. You can find that HERE (http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/142calvin_b10.htm). That same work is found in Calvin's Treatises on the Sacraments (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=27253&netp_id=315751&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW#curr) as well, though I have not read it yet.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Ps. I loved Mathison's book.

[heymikey80]

Kenith, I don't suppose that the Treatises can be found online? I'm also interested in reading Calvin's "Second Defense" in response to Joachim Westphal.

By the way, I too have read and can recommend Mathison's book.
You may already have this one:
Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper (http://www.the-highway.com/supper1_Calvin.html)

I've been looking for Melanchton's Variata (1540) of the Augsburg Confession, too.