SRR #48 | The Auburn Avenue Theology

ThornCrown Network

0 views

June 22, 2017

00:02: I do a podcast. I'm not interested in your podcast. These are these are wolves
00:11: Truth be told that I oftentimes Lay awake at night trying to figure out how I can get rid of wolves in the church
00:23: We are unabashedly Unashamedly Clarkian and so the next few statements that I'm going to make
00:29: I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time And this is what we do at simple riff around the radio.
00:35: You know we are polemical and polarizing Jesus style I would first say that to characterize
00:50: What we do as fashion is Itself fashion. It's not hate.
00:56: It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible Jesus said woe to you and then speak well of you for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way
01:11: As opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness? It is on we're taking the gloves off.
01:23: It's time to battle The topic tonight is the
01:32: Auburn Avenue theology and Before I begin I'd like to give you just sort of a cast of characters
01:39: So you have some idea who is involved in promoting this theology? I suppose at the head of it we ought to list
01:46: Steve Wilkins Since he is the pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana For which this theology has been named the
01:58: Auburn Avenue theology the church is a congregation of the PCA and Steve Wilkins is a teaching elder in good standing in the
02:07: PCA and There are others in the Louisiana Presbytery of which his congregation is a part that share his views
02:16: In addition to Steve Wilkins perhaps another name would be Douglas Wilson Perhaps that's more familiar to some of you in the
02:23: Pacific Northwest Wilson is pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho he's also sort of the guru of a theological
02:36: Ecclesiastical complex there they have not only the church, but a school a
02:42: College a publishing house, and I forgotten if there's anything else or not, but at least four different institutions
02:50: Canon Press is the name of the publishing company. I think it's Lagos school and New St.
02:56: Andrews College, and he is the head guru of all of those One of his employees is
03:02: Peter Lightheart now Wilson is not in the PCA Wilson is in the creck or the creche.
03:09: I don't know how they pronounce it CREC it's the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches They recently changed their names from the
03:18: CRE to the CREC and One of his employees is in the PCA Peter Lightheart And we'll be talking a little bit about Peter Lightheart tonight.
03:28: Peter Lightheart is a graduate of Westminster Seminary and Also holds a doctorate from Cambridge University in England and is a very prolific
03:39: Author has had many of his books published by Wilson's publishing house as of course
03:44: Wilson has himself Another name is Steve Schlissel Steve Schlissel is from Brooklyn, New York.
03:52: He is pastor of Messiah's congregation there They used to be affiliated with the
03:58: Christian Reformed Church But they left the Christian Reformed Church, and I'm not sure which group the congregations affiliated with now
04:05: Some other names of men in the PCA Jeffrey Myers pastor of a church in the
04:11: Midwest Mark Horne is in the PCA H -O -R -N -E another fellow named
04:17: Jeff Steele Rich Lusk L -U -S -K who was assistant pastor at Wilkinson's Church down in Monroe.
04:26: I believe he has left the PCA if I am properly informed and Has joined
04:33: Wilson's group the CREC Randy Booth David Bonson these people are less prominent than some of the others, but Bonson is the son of Greg Bonson John Barak, I'm not sure how he pronounces his name if anybody knows please correct me
04:51: B -A -R -A -C -H He's in the URC the United Reformed Church James Jordan who is in the background
05:01: Tom Traubhorst OPC pastor from New York is a promoter of these ideas
05:09: He used to be one of Schlissel's elders at Messiah's congregation now.
05:14: He's an OPC pastor and it's connected in New York Then a couple surprises that people may not think of junior
05:21: Sproul RC Sproul jr. Is a promoter of these ideas If you go to his website, you'll see his list of recommended links.
05:29: It includes James Jordan Douglas Wilson and Various other outlets on the web for these ideas when he was editor of table talk, he hired
05:42: Douglas Wilson to write a monthly column for three years and Invited Steve Schlissel and others
05:49: Steve Wilkins to write an occasional piece introduced those men to an audience that they might not otherwise have had and Has done his best in promoting those ideas another man affiliated with Ligonier ministries is
06:04: Keith Matheson who has had his books published by Canon Press and I didn't mention that junior
06:11: Sproul is in the RPCGA which is a micro Presbyterian denomination the
06:18: Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly most of those Some of them are obviously more prominent than others more prolific than others
06:27: Perhaps the most prolific writers are Wilson and Lightheart and James Jordan of the ones we've mentioned
06:35: They are very prolific One other name I forgot is George Grant who is currently writing for table talk
06:42: George Grant earned some distinction in 1997 by writing a favorable review of NT Wright's book what st.
06:50: Paul really said for world magazine that was as long ago as 1997 and now he's writing a monthly column for table talk.
07:00: These men are zealous They are not keeping their opinions to themselves
07:06: They are promoting their ideas through books many books Through conferences the
07:13: Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church held several conferences a year Perhaps it's most famous is the
07:19: January annual conference the pastors conference at which it has its speakers
07:24: Come in and pastors come from all over the US Typically, they will have an attendance of 100 to 150 pastors at their conferences through newsletters, there are several newsletters published by these men and Through websites the
07:39: World Wide Web is a replete with essays commentary blogs whatever
07:47: Promoted by these men the Auburn Avenue conferences have been going on for several years
07:53: I think they started in 97 or 98. I Attended one of the early ones the 1999 conference and I haven't been back since it was held at the
08:03: Auburn Avenue Church And perhaps you've heard people who have been to these conferences comment on the wonderful singing at the
08:10: Auburn Avenue Church I know in the book that Cal Beisner put together The Auburn Avenue theology pros and cons and if if you haven't read anything
08:21: This is probably about as good a source as any For understanding what they actually believe in the book
08:28: Steve Schlissel mentions how wonderful the singing is at the Auburn Avenue Church He says it's like you've gotten into heaven without being required to die first But what is what is sort of amusing about that is that the
08:42: Auburn Avenue building is a former Christian science structure and the
08:48: Christian scientists pay particular attention to acoustics when they construct a building and The building has extraordinary acoustics.
08:56: So what would sound like just run -of -the -mill singing in any other building in this building because of the acoustics sounds just wonderful and People mistake that for spirituality like Steve Schlissel they think that they because the singing resounds off the ceiling the ceiling is curved and Off the walls that somehow this indicates a higher level of spirituality than anywhere else
09:22: The acoustics are so good that the speakers although they ordinarily don't do so the speakers can stand up front and speak without a microphone and be heard all over the building and The room is many times the size of this particular room
09:38: Well, the speakers the year I went were Wilkins, Wilson, Schlissel and a man named
09:44: Derek Thomas who was excellent Derek Thomas was on the faculty of Reform Seminary at the time.
09:51: I'm not sure where he is now and I made the mistake of praising him I guess to the
09:56: Wilkins and he was never invited back to speak but they did invite of course Schlissel and Wilson back to speak this year this past January the two featured speakers were
10:08: N .T. Wright and Richard Gaffin and We've talked about both of those men earlier in this week
10:14: N .T. Wright the Anglican Bishop and Richard Gaffin I did not attend the conference, but I've read the transcripts thoroughly of the entire conference and What is striking about the conference is not that they said anything new.
10:29: I don't think they did But that Dr. Gaffin who has sometimes been regarded as a critic of Dr.
10:37: Wright took no opportunity to criticize him in Fact that when Dr. Wright was questioned about his views of Scripture particularly the doctrine of inerrancy
10:48: Dr. Gaffin tried to offer a verbal formulation to get him off the hook
10:54: Very interesting display it was as if they were trying to find as much common ground as they possibly could
11:01: Of course N .T. Wright denies inerrancy at the conference He said something like he dislikes all those words beginning with I -N
11:11: And I suppose that would include inspired and inerrant and intelligible
11:16: But that was his statement. He dislikes words beginning with I -N. I'd like to give you a list of about 21 contrasting views and I will comment on these as we go through them and Try to explain how they fit into what's going on and what we've studied earlier this week
11:38: First statement is simply a statement from Gressom Machen in 1924 now this statement was made 80 years ago in a somewhat different context as you recall
11:49: Machen had published his book Christianity and Liberalism in 1923 in which he argued that liberalism was not a distortion of Christianity, but a completely different religion and This is the statement he made the plain fact is that two mutually exclusive religions are being proclaimed in the pulpits of the
12:11: Presbyterian Church and Machen and those who supported him when they left the
12:16: Presbyterian Church a dozen years later Had the expectation that Thousands of Presbyterians would understand this and follow them into separate institutions
12:27: And they were sorely disappointed because the liberals had so carefully used the language of Scripture in Promoting their view that many were fooled.
12:38: Well this new theology that has come about is as insidious as anything that Machen faced 80 years ago and Here's the first contrast
12:49: I'd like to draw in the new theology We're told that because of the infinite gulf between creator and creature to say nothing of sin
13:01: Man cannot think God's thoughts The Christian view is that by propositional revelation
13:08: God has clearly Communicated his thoughts to his people for their understanding belief and guidance
13:15: The first is a denial of revelation of Propositional revelation and the second is an assertion of it
13:24: Now we talked a little bit last night about the theology of Cornelius Van Til Van Til was just a bundle of paradoxes and He held the new theological view here
13:39: Man cannot think God's thoughts and I gave you half a dozen or more quotations from Van Til in which he says this thing
13:47: At no point is there any identity of content between the reformed confessions and the divine system in the mind of God At no point he says it repeatedly and emphatically at no point
14:01: Is there any identity of content between the reformed confessions and the mind of God?
14:09: But he also said and he also used a phrase that some of his students remembered Which is excellent
14:15: He said we are called to think God's thoughts after him now one cannot have it both ways
14:22: If we cannot think God's thoughts, we certainly can't think God's thoughts after it But that is the
14:28: Christian position thinking God's thoughts after him. He reveals his thoughts in Scripture and We receive those thoughts and we can understand them and we think them
14:41: So God thinks that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and when that Proposition is revealed to us
14:49: We think that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth or God thinks that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea And when he reveals that proposition to us, we think that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea We assert the
15:06: Bible asserts that it is an in fact a revelation as The Confession chapter 1 says a revelation of God himself
15:16: He has revealed himself To his people and he does it in propositions.
15:23: He does it in words and Every one of those words is inspired by God and every one of those propositions is inerrant and infallible
15:34: That is a contrast. There's a chasm between these two views either we can think
15:41: God's thoughts or we can't and If we can't Then we might as well all go home
15:48: Because this is all a hoax Christianity is all a hoax. If we cannot think
15:53: God's thoughts. It's all a hoax. Well, let's continue I'll probably elaborate on that in a little bit.
15:59: Here's the second contrast between these views Human language cannot adequately or accurately express divine truth
16:09: We went over this the other night when we talked about the views of Herman Boevinck For example, and I quoted
16:15: Boevinck a few paragraphs from Boevinck's book the doctrine of God The Christian view is that human language is a gift of God to man and it can and does adequately express divine truth in the garden
16:30: God created Adam with language So that Adam could speak to God and that God could speak to Adam and both could understand each other
16:41: Language is not something that bubbled up from animal grunts and squeals.
16:46: It's not something derived from our Sensations it is a divine gift
16:52: It is innate in man and man thinks God's thoughts and converses with God we can pray and God can tell us he can reveal himself to us in Scripture God gave man language so that man might understand and communicate with God That is the primary purpose of language.
17:13: Also, we can understand and communicate with each other But the primary purpose is vertical so that we can understand and communicate with God and Because of that we can understand and communicate with each other
17:29: Again two contrasting views Only one of which can be true
17:35: Either language is adequate or it's not either language can accurately express divine truth or it can't and The Bible says it can the
17:47: Bible claims to be divine truth Divine truth in human words and if you think about specific occurrences in the
17:58: Bible You can see how important this is For instance, we're told when
18:03: Paul was on the road to Damascus that the Lord intercepted him and spoke to him in what?
18:11: Anybody recall what language he spoke? He heard him in the Hebrew tongue The Lord spoke
18:17: Hebrew to Paul on the road to Damascus When Jesus walked on earth
18:23: Presumably he spoke Aramaic and Greek and Hebrew When he read from Isaiah Presumably he read in Hebrew.
18:32: He may have read the Septuagint that would be Greek But here you have the second person of the
18:38: Trinity Reading in human language. No complaints about the words cannot express what
18:45: I'm trying to convey the words express accurately and adequately
18:51: Exactly what he's trying to convey. Well, let's go to the third point. It's related to This one that we just discussed all language about God is metaphorical
19:02: All language about God is metaphorical now This is not a new doctrine.
19:08: In fact, if you read Gordon Clark's book language and theology You'll see that many religious thinkers have argued that all language about God is metaphorical
19:19: This is not something new to this Auburn Avenue theology in fact hardly any of this is they have simply seized on several errors
19:27: That have been committed before and adopted them as their own at the 1999 conference that I attended down at Auburn Avenue Wilson spoke three times and he spoke on what he called poetic epistemology and the thesis of his talks was
19:45: That there's no such thing as literal language That all language is metaphorical he even went beyond this it's not just language about God that's metaphorical
19:55: But all language is metaphorical There is no literal language.
20:01: Now, of course that point of view is self -defeating Because mr. Wilson wants us to understand him literally if all language were
20:12: Metaphorical then we should say to him. Well, I'm glad you agree with me. Mr. Wilson that all language is literal
20:18: It is self -contradictory to argue that all language is metaphorical Not only that but we recognize that there are metaphors in Scripture And if all language is metaphorical we cannot distinguish between literal and metaphor
20:35: If all language is metaphorical So we say the cross is metaphorical it stands for something else.
20:43: What does it stand for? Well, it stands for the love of God The cross the cross of Christ that stands for the love of God Well, if all language is metaphorical, what does the love of God stand for?
20:55: Let's go back another step and as you can see we're not going to make any headway because we're never going to get beyond metaphor
21:02: We will never know what anything stands for if all language is metaphorical Well, the
21:08: Christian view is that God's revelation is literally true This doesn't mean that everything in Scripture such as Christ's statement.
21:16: I am the door is literally true That's a figure of speech
21:22: Christ is not an oak panel three feet by nine feet high and two inches thick
21:28: That's not his meaning but we can translate the metaphor into literal language and In fact we must if we're going to understand
21:38: Scripture if we cannot translate it into literal language We don't know what it means
21:45: We have no idea what it means So when you read Scripture when you come across a figure of speech a metaphor or whatever
21:53: Figure out if you can what the literal meaning of it is What does he mean when he says
21:59: I am the door? Or I am the vine or any of the other figures of speech in Scripture if you do not know if you cannot express what they literally mean then you don't know what they mean and You'll have to do further study to figure it out
22:15: Metaphors trip theologians up all the time a trip Luther up Luther believed that when
22:21: Christ said this is my body. He was speaking literally He didn't realize it was a metaphor.
22:28: He didn't realize it was a figure of speech and Theologians make this mistake all the time mistaking metaphors for literal statements
22:38: Christ told parables I mentioned this the other night Parables are extended figures of speech and we have the impression sometimes learned in Sunday school
22:48: That Christ told metaphors for the purpose of explaining his ideas and simple homely terms
22:54: So that everybody could understand what he meant That's precisely the opposite of why he spoke in parables
23:01: The disciples asked him it's it's they're the Gospels Repeatedly, why do you speak in parables and his answer is to confuse people?
23:12: Because it is not given for them to know But to you it is given to know and I will speak to you plainly
23:20: So he takes the disciples aside and explains in literal speech the meaning of the parables
23:27: But to the crowds he speaks in figures of speech in parables So that they will be confused the direct opposite of what you might have learned in Sunday school about the purpose of parables
23:40: In John's Gospel, he does this and the disciples are ecstatic. They say now you're telling us plainly what you mean
23:49: They're grateful for this Because they don't have to puzzle through the parables to figure out what means what?
23:56: They're grateful for the literal statements that Christ makes Well continuing with this list
24:04: Here's a fourth one a related one all of these relate to the idea of revelation God's logic if we can speak of God's logic is different from human logic
24:16: Which is created by God now, this was a teaching of Van Til among others that human logic is created by God That's the position of the new theology.
24:26: The Christian position is that God's logic is man's logic for there's only one logic
24:32: Logic is the structure of God's own thought Rational man is the image of God In the first chapter of John We have the statement that Christ the
24:44: Logos is the light that lights the mind of every man Here you have the doctrine of the divine
24:51: Logos lighting the mind of every man This is the image of God It is his rationality
24:59: God has the same logic that man does that's why communication is possible
25:06: That's why revelation is possible That's why prayer is possible In our arithmetic 1 plus 1 is 2 in God's arithmetic 1 plus 1 is 2
25:19: In God's logic if all dogs have teeth and Spaniels are dogs then
25:25: Spaniels have teeth In our logic if all dogs have teeth and Spaniels are dogs
25:31: Then Spaniels have teeth The forms the rules are the same in God's logic and man's logic
25:40: Otherwise communication is impossible in fact thought is impossible not just communication now
25:47: This is in striking contrast to some of these Auburn Avenue theologians for example Let me quote from a lecture that Doug Wilson gave and this published in this book
25:57: And I'll read his exact words, so I don't mislead you Here's what he writes
26:02: He says GK Chesterton my favorite papist once said that when we are confronted with two apparently contradictory
26:10: Truths we should insist on keeping both of them We are not to make it easier for ourselves to hold on to one by letting go of the other
26:19: Well if they're only apparently contradictory, that's fine But what Wilson goes on to say is we are not to resolve them.
26:27: He says repeatedly in this essay let God do the math by which he means let God figure out how these two truths fit together as Far as really contradictory truths there can be no such thing
26:41: If something is a proposition its contradictory has to be false if the proposition is true
26:48: With contradictions with contradictory is one has to be false and one has to be true there cannot be two contradictory truths at all
26:59: Wilson also has another essay the great logic hopes in his book God's Padilla.
27:05: I think it is You might want to look that up and read that sometime because it's a very interesting attack on logic
27:12: The title is the great logic hopes and among other things he says in there that the proposition 2 plus 2 is 4 is not true 2 plus 2 is 4 is not true according to Douglas Wilson The whole essay is an attack on precision in thought on rationality and even on excellence in one scholarship
27:34: He ends the essay by advising Christian schoolteachers to lighten up and not to expect so much from their students
27:41: Which is bizarre But that's the way he ends the essay But here you have a different view of logic
27:49: Then till taught that logic was created It was not something that is the structure of God's thought
27:57: But simply that logic is created. Well, let's go on to number five here.
28:02: This is a statement You've probably seen many times It was in the bobbing quotes I gave the new theology says the finite cannot grasp the infinite
28:12: Christianity says precisely because God is all -powerful and all -knowing He can and has revealed himself to men so that they can and do understand him
28:26: Precisely because God is all -powerful and all -knowing He can reveal himself.
28:32: He can say exactly what he means and he can ensure that we understand it If God cannot talk
28:41: Then again, we ought to close up shop and go home in a discussion the other day
28:46: Someone raised the question. What about Calvin's language of God lisping to us? my response was
28:53: God doesn't have a speech impediment a Lisp is a speech impediment and Calvin should never have said that It is an attack on God's ability to communicate truth to men
29:06: This has nothing to do really with us we are creatures and God can make his creatures
29:15: Understand him if he wishes It has to do everything with God's ability.
29:21: It's precisely because God is omnipotent and God is omniscient that he can reveal himself to men
29:30: Far from being an impediment to his revelation. It's the ground of his revelation
29:35: Well, here's another contrast revelation is non propositional Revelation is only propositional
29:43: Again, we talked briefly about this earlier in the week the new theology holds and again
29:49: This is not unique to the Auburn Avenue folks. They are simply adopting a series of errors taught before them in the churches
29:59: They may believe that revelation consists of events We talked about that last night or that revelation consists of experiences or of emotions or of images
30:13: Mystical religious experiences perhaps a revelation for some like N .T.
30:18: Wright Anything anything it seems to be the case except propositions
30:25: Because propositions are aimed at the mind They're aimed at the understanding and they think such a religion is
30:34: Gnostic Such a religion is rationalist and these are words they use
30:40: Gnostic and rationalist Schlissel even uses the word. What is it propositionalist?
30:46: He says this is propositionalism and Of course Schlissel has a hard time expressing himself without using propositions, but he attacks propositionalism and He says that revelation consists of knowing a person not a proposition.
31:03: Well, we've heard all this before folks This was one of the core doctrines of liberalism a hundred years ago
31:10: No creed, but Christ No creed, no proposition No system just Christ We have to focus on the person and a hundred years before that we heard it from Soren Kierkegaard the
31:23: Danish philosopher Who says the object of faith is not a doctrine
31:30: Because if that were the case, it would be important not to botch the doctrine or we would be lost
31:38: He says the object of faith is not a teacher with a doctrine
31:44: Because in that case it would still be important not to botch the doctrine or we would be lost
31:50: He says the object of faith and you could read Kierkegaard yourself the object of faith is the reality of the teacher.
32:01: That's what he said Not doctrine not even a teacher with a doctrine, but the reality of the teacher that's the object of faith
32:10: And this is cropping up again. It crops up every generation and in this case the
32:17: Auburn Avenue folks are promoting the idea that the truth is a person rather than a proposition and The object of faith is that person?
32:28: Rather than a proposition on that whole point. I'd urge you to read dr. Clark's book.
32:34: What is saving faith? Because he does something that no other commentator has done to my knowledge
32:40: He actually goes through the gospel of John and sees how John uses the word logos
32:46: He doesn't stop with the first chapter but he sees how John uses the Greek word all the way through the gospel and He explains in that way why
32:56: John uses the same word to refer to Christ and his teaching Christ says he's going to give you his logos
33:05: His doctrine well, that's the same word John used in chapter one to refer to Christ himself And the exegesis of the point in the gospel of John is that there is no gap
33:18: Between the logos with a capital L and the logos with a small L There's no gap between the doctrine in Christ because Christ is the truth he said
33:30: I am the way the truth and the life and He's telling us truths
33:37: When he speaks in the gospel of John, he's giving us his mind And that's why
33:43: Paul writes we have the mind of Christ Well, let's go on here the new theology is that Knowledge is not necessary for salvation
33:56: What's necessary is having the right relationship However, that's defined
34:03: To either a person or to a church So if you're baptized as these men say over and over again, and I hope
34:12: I'll get to quote their words in a few minutes if you're baptized you enter into a new relationship with Christ a relationship that gives you all the
34:23: Benefits and blessings that Christ obtained for his people we baptize infants precisely because they cannot know anything and they receive
34:31: Salvation apart from knowledge now this of course again has nothing to do with Christianity Salvation is coming to the knowledge of the truth as Paul writes and as the author of Hebrews writes
34:45: And without that knowledge of the truth despite what Soren Kierkegaard said we're lost
34:52: Those who have not heard of Christ and therefore cannot believe are lost
34:59: How shall they believe unless they hear and how shall they hear unless there's a preacher
35:05: The knowledge is indispensable As far as infants being unable to know what basis is there in Scripture for that?
35:13: We have examples in Scripture of infants knowing John the
35:21: Baptist before he was born leapt in his mother's womb for joy when he learned that the mother of his
35:27: Lord was there visiting Jeremiah says the same thing that he knew before he was born
35:33: Where did we get the idea that infants don't know that they don't understand?
35:39: Most of us in here I would guess her parents as a parent. I'm sure you realize that Infants understand much earlier than they can express their thoughts
35:49: We sometimes make the distinction between being able to know and being able to articulate something
35:56: Well infants understand very well. They can understand the scripture say before they're born and This goes right along with the doctrine of man created in the image of God because man does not have a blank mind
36:12: He is created in the image of God. He has innate ideas His mind is not blank when he comes into the world
36:21: Well, let's continue here moving into the doctrine of salvation We find a statement on faith saving faith is not a scent to propositions
36:33: The Christian view is saving faith that is belief is a scent to propositions revealed in Scripture If a person doesn't know those propositions if he's never been instructed if he's never heard the gospel
36:47: He cannot be saved saving faith is not some mystical experience It's not something that people obtain apart from understanding saving faith is more than belief or assent it is faithfulness obedience and You see this through the
37:05: Auburn Avenue theology They try to redefine the word faith as faithfulness
37:11: If the Christian view is saving faith is merely a scent to understood propositions
37:17: Faithfulness and obedience are results of believing not parts of believing
37:22: Their results of believing their effects of believing their fruit use the biblical metaphor of believing
37:30: But the faith itself is simple belief the saving faith. It's simple belief of the gospel
37:36: The jailer asked what must I do to be saved and the response is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved
37:44: Jesus when he's teaching Nicodemus and John 3 Tells him that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
37:51: Son that whoever believes on him Shall be saved whoever believes on him shall be saved
38:00: Of course this confuses Nicodemus, but we don't need to get into that he should have understood this and Jesus says so and Jesus Tries to humiliate him by saying are you the teacher of Israel, and you don't understand these things
38:14: Whoever believes shall be saved. It is not faithfulness. That is the effect of the belief
38:21: The obedience the good works are the effect of the belief. They are not part of the belief
38:28: Paul when he talks about salvation in Romans 3 and 4 he talks about justification and He says we're saved by belief apart from the deeds of the law
38:41: We're saved by faith apart from the works He uses that word apart a good deal in those chapters
38:49: So works and deeds of the law and faithfulness and obedience cannot be part of faith
38:55: Because we're saved by faith apart from the deeds of the law Well continuing here number 10 the new theology says faith alone justifies because faith includes obedience
39:09: Or faith is faithfulness So it alone justifies they will say yes, we believe in justification by faith alone because they've redefined faith
39:18: Faith is faithfulness Christianity says belief alone justifies apart from works.
39:24: This is very offensive to many people It was very offensive to people in Paul's day because one of the charges raised against the gospel was that it's antinomian
39:34: Well, we have no motive to keep the law then we have no motive to obey the Ten Commandments if we're saved apart from keeping the
39:42: Ten Commandments and Paul deals with that in his letter to the Romans. He deals with it very thoroughly
39:50: My advice to pastors sometimes is look if you aren't accused of being an antinomian and you're probably not preaching the gospel
39:59: Because that's one of the effects the gospel is going to have that's one of the accusations made against Paul If you aren't being clear on this point
40:07: If you're sort of smuggling in works through the back door, you can avoid the charge of antinomianism
40:13: But you avoid it at the expense of distorting the gospel Or even obscuring the gospel well, one of the things that the new theology denies is the covenant of works and Christianity has always taught that God because he's absolutely holy has always required perfect obedience in the garden, there's a requirement of perfect obedience and If there isn't perfect obedience, there's punishment if there is perfect obedience, there's reward this again has enormous consequences for theology because you do away with the idea of the covenant of works and what you end up with is saying
41:00: God has lowered his standards and he's satisfied with our imperfect obedience and That's why
41:07: Paul Emphasizes in Romans that in the doctrine of justification we establish the law.
41:13: We do not undermine the law We establish the law and Christ himself is the only one who has kept the law
41:25: James teaches us as I emphasized last night that if we keep the whole law and offend in one point
41:32: We are guilty of all perfect obedience God has not lowered his standards and He never will
41:44: Well, let's continue here new theology because there was no covenant of works
41:49: God did not earn the salvation of his people, but he was himself saved and we participate in his salvation through union with him
41:57: Now this may sound a little bit odd, but it's in the Gaffin's book resurrection and redemption He speaks at length in there about the salvation of Christ about his justification his redemption his sanctification his adoption his glorification and It's because Christ is saved
42:17: That we are saved because we are united to Christ Christian doctrine is that Christ earned salvation for his people by his perfect life and obedient death
42:28: Christ himself did not need salvation and he was not saved from sin the doctrine of union with Christ as it shows up in this theology has not only
42:42: Pushed justification aside But it's also pushed aside the role of Christ as mediator as our substitute and our representative if you're going to have union as Horatius Bonar says in the everlasting righteousness of booked on the table there if You're going to make
43:02: Union the centerpiece of your theology. Then you've done away with substitution Again, you can have one or the other but it can't be both
43:13: Christ righteousness is not imputed to believers is the new theology They are saved by union with him and possess all that he is in the inner man.
43:22: This is a quote from Dick Gaffin I read it to you last night. It's in his book resurrection and redemption and Just to make sure
43:30: I'm perfectly clear not the first part of the sentence But the last part we were saved by union with him and possess all that he is in the inner man
43:40: And dr. Gaffin goes on to say, of course, that's why God declares us righteous is because we're already righteous
43:48: And if you're familiar with the history of theology, you know, that's Roman Catholic doctrine Christ righteousness is imputed to believers through faith alone, and it is the only ground of their fellowship with God It's not union but imputation or as dr.
44:06: Gaffin calls it existential or Experiential union if somebody wants to argue legal union or Intellectual union
44:15: I'll agree with him wholeheartedly But not experiential or existential. Here's the words again that dr.
44:22: Gaffin uses Saving union with Christ is existential or experiential the
44:28: Auburn Avenue folks say it's also ritual by Baptized being baptized you're baptized into Christ.
44:37: You're united with Christ in baptism When you eat the Lord's Supper You are eating
44:43: Christ and you are united to him in that way That's sort of an ongoing union
44:52: Christianity says saving union with Christ is legal and intellectual
44:58: Legal because he's our representative and our substitute. He's the federal head of his people.
45:04: These are all legal terms Christian doctrine places the law of God at its core.
45:11: This is again why I say Paul says we do not undermine the law We establish the law all of these terms are legal terms and It's intellectual because we have the mind of Christ God has revealed himself in the scripture in propositions that we can understand and believe
45:31: It's an intellectual relationship the metaphor used in Scripture is the relationship between Christ and his people is of the marriage relationship and That metaphor is used because that's perhaps the closest thing that might be used
45:47: But actually the union the intellectual union between Christ and his people is much closer than that between a husband and wife
45:56: And it's much closer because they're both thinking the same thoughts You know after maybe 30 years of marriage a husband and a wife can finish each other's sentences
46:05: Because they're thinking the same way Well our union with Christ ought to be the same way
46:14: That we can finish his sentences That we have his word so drilled into our minds
46:23: That we know what he's thinking That we have hid his words in our hearts
46:30: That we know what God thinks on a particular subject Well in the new theology the elect are the baptized
46:40: The elect in Christianity are those for whom Christ died and each is given the gift of faith millions who have been baptized or lost and And of course the new theology says well, they're covenantally elect they're not decoratively elect
46:57: But we call them elect nonetheless They're covenantally elect Well this goes back again to the doctrine of the covenant
47:05: Who is a member of the covenant and this is a crucial issue in this theology who is a member of the covenant in?
47:11: The next hour I will try to explain that to you from their point of view that they think that all the baptized everyone who is baptized using the
47:20: Trinitarian formula is a member of the covenant and That's not the view of scripture
47:26: And that is not the view of the Westminster Confession the last overhead I put up had the contrast between who the elect are the elect are the baptized and the elect are those for whom
47:36: Christ died and Millions of the baptized have are lost I'll interrupt my list here with a statement from the
47:44: Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church they adopted this statement in 2002 as An official statement of their position the the congregation didn't but the session did
47:55: And notice what they say all covenant members are invited to attain to a full and robust confidence that they are
48:02: God's eternally elect ones Starting with their baptisms. They have every reason to believe
48:07: 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
48:18: So they can maintain their status as elect so long as they persevere in faithfulness
48:24: And it's baptism that marks them out as God's elect people I'll give you a couple other quotations from the
48:32: Auburn Avenue Church This is article 7 By baptism one is joined to Christ's body united to him covenantally and given all the blessings and benefits of his work
48:44: Now that phrase is crucial given all the blessings and benefits of his work by baptism
48:50: This does not however grant to the baptized final salvation now Do you see the problem here that means final salvation is not one of the benefits and blessings of Christ's work
49:01: He gives you an initial salvation he gives you an initial justification
49:07: But not final salvation That's the only way you make sense of this Unless these people are just uttering one contradiction after another which is always possible
49:17: This does not grant to the baptized final salvation That is all the blessings and benefits of Christ's work and rather it obligates him rather than giving him a gift it obligates him
49:29: To fulfill the terms of the Covenant Embracing these blessings by faith repenting of sins and persevering in faithful obedience to God one can only fulfill the terms of the
49:42: Covenant by faith not by works and Even this faith is the gift of God lest anyone should boast so they will use scriptural phraseology in order to mask what they're saying
49:55: In baptism you receive all the blessings and benefits of Christ's work
50:01: But not final salvation This goes back to the doctrine of justification as we discussed it earlier where they have an initial justification and a final justification
50:12: Let me give you another statement here from the Auburn Avenue position papers This is article 8
50:20: God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass who would disagree with that Including who would be saved and lost for all eternity included in his decree however, and you always have to watch for these howevers and these buts that they put in is
50:37: That some persons not destined for final salvation Will be drawn to Christ and his people only for a time
50:44: These for a season enjoy real blessings purchased for them by Christ cross and Applied to them by the
50:54: Holy Spirit by the Word and sacrament Now do you see what favorite
51:00: Calvinist doctrine goes down the tubes here? It's a doctrine of definite atonement that Christ died for his people
51:08: Those who are not finally saved not destined for final salvation Nevertheless enjoy real blessings purchased for them by Christ cross
51:20: Christ died for people who are reprobate Well, let's go on here. Here's another article 10 of the
51:27: AAPC position The biblical narrative however appears to draw no distinction between Saul's initial experience of the
51:36: Spirit Saul being King Saul in the Old Testament and the experience of those who obtained final salvation
51:44: Notice how this phrase keeps appearing final salvation While God no doubt predestined
51:50: Saul's apostasy since he for ordains all that comes to pass God was not the author of Saul's apostasy
51:58: Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David Gideon and other men who persevered in faith received
52:06: But he did not receive the gift of perseverance Now notice that Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David Gideon and other men who were saved received
52:20: But he did not receive the gift of perseverance So he received the initial covenantal grace of what?
52:28: regeneration adoption all the blessings and benefits of Christ's work except for final salvation
52:38: See what they're teaching That you can be regenerate you can be adopted you can be justified you can be sanctified and you can go to hell and They claim this assures people of their salvation because they have an objective assurance in their baptism
52:56: There's no assurance in this at all. Of course. Let me see if there's another one here Here's another good one
53:04: It appears that the Bible speaks of salvation more often than not in relational and covenantal categories
53:11: Rather than in metaphysical ones Salvation is not a thing we possess that can be lost and found like car keys
53:19: It is a matter of being rightly related to God through Christ But notice then what they go on here
53:26: They say salvation can't be lost and found like car keys if we understand that correctly I suppose most of us would agree with that It's not changeable
53:36: Once you're saved you're saved. You're not saved. You're not saved But notice what they go on to say relationships.
53:43: They've said salvation is a relationship Relationships are not static unchanging entities
53:50: They are fluid and dynamic Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage if we persevere and loyalty to Christ We will live with him happily ever after if we break the marriage covenant.
54:02: He will divorce us now the confession summarizes the confession is the best summary of scripture that has ever been done by a council and it summarizes the doctrine of justification by saying that as we saw the other night a
54:19: Person who is justified can never fall from the state of justification
54:25: The confessions correctly summarized scripture is teaching that Christians sin and they incur what the confession calls
54:34: God's fatherly displeasure and Their fellowship with God is interrupted by their sin until they repent
54:42: But it says they can never fall from the state of justification But the doctrine of the
54:49: Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church is God will divorce them Two different theologies.
54:55: Well, let's see if I have another one here Here's another one from an end note God mysteriously has chosen to draw many into the covenant community who are not elect in the ultimate sense and Who are not destined to receive final salvation.
55:11: There's that phrase again final salvation these non elect covenant members are brought truly to Christ united to him in the church by baptism and Receive various gracious operations of the
55:24: Holy Spirit Corporately, they are part of the chosen redeemed spirit indwelt people.
55:30: These are people who are finally lost It says they're truly brought to Christ united to him in the church by baptism and Receive gracious operations of the
55:43: Holy Spirit and they're part of the chosen redeemed spirit indwelt people Well, let's continue with a list and maybe
55:51: I can get through a few more of the contrasts here The next one fits right in here.
55:56: The Christian can lose his election justification and salvation Christianity teaches the
56:02: Bible teaches election justification and salvation are irrevocable the new theology says that the final justification of Christians depends on their lifelong performance and Christianity teaches that the final
56:17: Justification of sinners occurs at the moment of first belief of the gospel and depends solely on the righteousness of Christ Romans 8 1 there is therefore now no condemnation the new theology says
56:29: God accepts our faithfulness our imperfect obedience as partial ground or as an instrument of our justification
56:36: Norman Shepard as we saw Denies that he teaches that our obedience is the ground of our justification but it is an instrument of our justification just like faith in Christianity says the sole ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ and the sole instrument of justification is belief of the gospel
56:57: God has not lowered his standards It's still perfect obedience
57:03: Number 19 has to do with the covenant of grace The new theology teaches that the covenant of grace is made with all the baptized
57:13: They become members of the covenants when they're baptized Christianity says the covenant of grace is made with Christ and the elect the in Christianity.
57:22: The covenant is efficacious. It's effective People in the covenant without exception are saved in Christianity But in the covenant that has been constructed by the
57:34: Auburn Avenue theologians many of them are lost you can be regenerate You can be adopted you can be justified and go to hell question 31 of the larger catechism asked this question with whom was the covenant of grace made and Here's the response the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second
57:56: Adam and In him with all the elect as his seat the covenant of grace is not made with the baptized
58:04: The covenant of grace is made with Christ as the mediator and in him with all the elect as his seat
58:12: That's who the parties to the covenant of grace are in the Auburn Avenue theology the role of Christ as mediator almost disappears the covenant is a bilateral relationship between us and God and We have to fulfill the terms of the covenant or we're in peril of losing our salvation in the new theology
58:33: Good works are necessary to retain our justification in Christianity believers are irrevocably justified apart from all works they can never fall the confession says from the state of justification and finally the last one
58:49: I'll put up is Has to do with the discipline of biblical theology, which we talked a little bit about last night
58:57: Biblical theology is prior to and superior to systematic theology and in Christian theology
59:04: Systematic theology is both logically and chronologically prior to biblical theology.
59:09: God's Word is forever settled in the heavens His decree is the source of all the universe
59:16: Christianity is an historical religion But it is not based on history history is based on the decree of God The decree of God is prior to history
59:28: Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world the doctrine of the atonement and the whole plan of redemption is in the mind of God before creation and to say that History is somehow superior to or more basic than systematic theology is to get things precisely backwards
59:46: It's the focus on the order of the revelation rather than the content of the revelation Well, there's one other gentleman that I did want to say something about and that is
59:57: Peter Lightheart And then I'll open it up for questions, but Peter Lightheart as I said, he's a teaching elder in the
01:00:04: PCA He's also a teacher at New St. Andrews College Very prolific author has 10 12 books in print
01:00:12: One of them is titled against Christianity and there may be an essay on the back table there by that title it's a review of his book and Again, no matter what your views are whether you agree with me or agree with the men.
01:00:26: I've been criticizing I hope you'll read Peter Lightheart's book Because he makes it about as plain as anyone can what's happening and I'll give you some quotes from Peter Lightheart's book
01:00:37: Against Christianity. This is what he writes The Bible never mentions Christianity.
01:00:44: Well, that may be true The word Christianity doesn't appear in Scripture perhaps neither does the word
01:00:49: Trinity. So I'm not sure what we're drawing from this It does not preach Christianity. Now.
01:00:54: That's a more serious charge The Bible does not preach Christianity Nor does it encourage us to preach?
01:01:02: Christianity Paul did not preach Christianity nor did any of the other apostles
01:01:09: During centuries when the church was strong and vibrant and you can all guess when those centuries were
01:01:16: She did not preach Christianity either. These men in Moscow are medievalists they think the centuries when the church was strong and vibrant were the
01:01:25: Times of darkness when the Roman State Church ruled Europe That's when the church was strong and vibrant.
01:01:33: That's what they longed for There's another situation like that When the church was strong and vibrant she did not preach
01:01:41: Christianity either Christianity like Judaism and Yahwism is an invention of biblical scholars theologians and politicians and One of its chief effects is to keep
01:01:54: Christians and the church in their proper marginal place the Bible speaks of Christians and of the church, but Christianity is
01:02:02: Gnostic and The church firmly rejected Gnosticism from her earliest days
01:02:10: Christianity is the heresy of heresies continuing with the quote The underlying cause of the weakness lethargy sickness and failure of the modern church
01:02:22: Now I'd forgive you if you thought that the lack of Christianity was the cause of the failure of the modern church but Dr.
01:02:33: Lightheart teaching elder in good standing in the Presbyterian Church of America says
01:02:38: Christianity is the heresy of heresies and The reason for the failure of the modern church and what does he mean by Christianity?
01:02:48: He means the theology of Scripture That's what he means by it
01:02:53: After I published my review of his book last May he was kind enough to put on his blog
01:03:00: Comments about my review in Which he acknowledged that I had understood him perfectly
01:03:06: It's very helpful when authors will acknowledge that a critic has understood them perfectly because the charge is usually well
01:03:12: You misunderstood what I said, but I didn't misunderstand what he said and He said so this is precisely what he's aimed at.
01:03:21: He's aiming at Christian theology It's the heresy of heresies. He continues.
01:03:26: He says well, let me make my own comments here He cannot abide by the notion
01:03:31: None of these men can for example That that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit quoting
01:03:39: John 3 Do not marvel Jesus said that I said unto you you must be born again
01:03:45: The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes
01:03:52: So is everyone who is born of the spirit what these men want is
01:03:57: Control over the spirit What they want to say is that in ritual baptism in water baptism
01:04:05: We in fact regenerate people They're teaching baptismal regeneration the idea that the spirit
01:04:12: Regenerates when and where and whom he wishes is Gnostic They scorn this idea the idea that the spirit acts immediately on the minds of men
01:04:22: He always acts they say through God's authorized Representatives in the churches.
01:04:28: It's really a form of magic. They want to control the spirit by their incantations
01:04:34: Well, what is dr. Lightheart's gospel? We talked about NT right the other night. Here's what dr
01:04:40: Lightheart says since the gospel is about the restoration of the human race in Christ The gospel is a social gospel from the very outset
01:04:49: The gospel is sociology and international relations the gospel is politics
01:04:57: If we are going to stand for this gospel He says these are his words if we are going to stand for this gospel, we must stand against Christianity We see if I can find a couple more quotes from his book for you
01:05:11: He says the Bible is not a theology text or a catechism that arranges doctrines in systematic order
01:05:19: Paul's epistles have often been treated as many textbooks But they are manifestly not they are epistles and cyclicals
01:05:28: Addressing specific issues in the churches form cannot be stripped away without changing content now
01:05:35: That's a very important statement. He says form cannot be stripped away without changing content and when
01:05:42: Paul's various statements on say Justification he just happens to think of justification are removed from the epistolary and ecclesiastical
01:05:51: Context and organized into a calm and systematic and erudite doctrine They become something different from what
01:05:58: Paul taught now shall I read that again when Paul's various statements on justification are removed from his letters and their context and Organized into a calm and systematic doctrine they become something different from what
01:06:13: Paul taught This is a direct attack on the Reformed Confessions the Westminster Confession is precisely a calm and systematic doctrine a
01:06:24: Systematic organization of what Paul has to say not only on justification, which is the example, dr
01:06:30: Lightheart uses but everything else in the scripture and he says what's in the confessions is different from what
01:06:36: Paul taught Because the principle is form cannot be stripped away without changing content just to make sure that we don't misunderstand
01:06:45: You know, dr. Lightheart is very obliging in this way. He makes it very clear He says theology
01:06:51: Tells us that God is eternal and unchangeable and as being wisdom power holiness justice goodness and truth
01:06:57: Does anybody know where that came from? He doesn't put quote marks in the book, but if you're familiar with the
01:07:03: Confession of faith, you know, it's chapter 2 the confession. He says that's what theology tells us
01:07:09: Then here's what he writes the Bible However tells us that God relents because he is
01:07:15: God that God is shrewd with the shrewd and he rejoices over us with shouting and that he's an eternal
01:07:21: Whirlwind of triune communion and love the Bible has a different message Different from what the
01:07:28: Westminster Confession says in chapter 2 see by taking it out of the context of the letters by taking it out of the historical context and Arranging it into a catechism or arranging it into a confession.
01:07:40: The content has changed It's what he says Form cannot be stripped away without changing content
01:07:49: So what he means by Christianity is a systematic arrangement of the doctrines and scriptures such as we find in the
01:07:56: Westminster Confession This is the heresy of Harrison's He uses his words.
01:08:03: Well, I won't continue with dr. Lightheart's quotes But if that essay is back there, please pick up copies and read it
01:08:09: Simply titled against Christianity if you can borrow a copy of his book called against Christianity, please do so Now what is most striking?
01:08:20: Ecclesiastically about this book is that he is confident enough that no one in the
01:08:26: PCA Will bring charges against him or remove him from office Otherwise, he wouldn't publish a book with this title and this content.
01:08:34: It's a brazen attack on Christian doctrine it's a brazen attack on the
01:08:39: Westminster Confession and all confessions for that matter and He publishes it under his own name confident
01:08:49: Confident that no one will discipline him for it And so far as I know that is still the case as far as I know
01:08:56: He is still a teaching elder in good standing in the Presbyterian Church of America This book came out two years ago published by Doug Wilson's Canon Press.
01:09:06: Well at this point I think I will rest and ask you for your comments and your questions if you have any and I'll close with just one final comment.
01:09:17: The question is who will win in this battle who will win? Because there is a battle going on in Presbyterian churches and who will win and My response is if the pattern of history is any indication the heretics will win.
01:09:32: J. Gresham Machen was defrocked thrown out of the Presbyterian Church PC USA. He lost
01:09:38: The heretics won. The Reformers lost Luther was excommunicated He wanted to reform the
01:09:45: Roman Church. He failed The church turned its full might against the Reformation slaughtered thousands of Christians and The only reason that the
01:09:56: Reformers succeeded to any extent was because they set up separate institutions apart from the
01:10:01: Roman Church And if these historical cases are any indicators of the future, that's exactly what's going to happen today
01:10:10: People who hold to the biblical doctrine will be forced out of the PCA They will be forced out of the
01:10:16: OPC and these doctrines will hold sway. Now we pray that that isn't the case
01:10:23: We pray that enough members of the OPC that enough members of the
01:10:28: PCA are informed or make themselves informed and Take action against these men
01:10:36: After all, it's the members that pay their salary and keep them in office and they can be voted out of office if the
01:10:44: Presbyterians will not act the members should they should at least vote with their checkbooks and Stop supporting any pastor or any
01:10:53: Presbyterian or any denomination That teaches these things It's a sin to write a check to a denomination that teaches this doctrine.
01:11:03: It is an attack on Christ That's one of the messages that John gives when he's writing to the elect lady
01:11:11: He says if anyone comes to you and doesn't bring this doctrine don't even receive him into your house
01:11:17: Give him no support whatsoever That's her instruction She can't go out as a missionary or as a itinerant evangelist or anything else but what she can do is refuse financial support for these teachers and That's what should happen
01:11:37: Christians who are informed of this should write their checks to Western reform seminary to organizations that support the
01:11:46: Christian religion rather than the new theology, that's what should happen, but Whether it will happen.
01:11:53: I don't know as I said earlier when Machen left the Presbyterian Church in 1936 he had high hopes about thousands of people following him
01:12:04: And it didn't happen the first meeting of the What was then the
01:12:10: PCA had about a hundred and thirty six people at it very few And that's both elders and laymen in that number
01:12:18: Well, anyway, go ahead sir. You had a question Over in Moscow I Well, I understand
01:12:40: Wilson's church is very large what 800 people and His light hearts in the same group or is it a
01:12:46: PCA Church? Is that right
01:13:11: One of the comments that Steve Schlissel makes in one of his essays in this book And this book by the way is published by Knox Seminary and you can get a copy from Knox Seminary if you're inclined
01:13:21: But one of the comments he makes is that look at our success. He says we don't have little
01:13:27: Congregations or 15 or 20 people Now he says we have this wonderful singing at Auburn Avenue and Doug Wilson's church is growing so fast
01:13:36: They have to move the walls out every couple years to accommodate more people Well, if that's a sound argument, let's all go back to Rome.
01:13:44: The Pope has a billion adherents. I Mean, let's not be satisfied with 800
01:13:50: If church growth is the criterion of spirituality and orthodoxy then Rome has us beat many times over But whoever discovered truth by counting noses
01:14:02: Truth is revealed in Scripture Not by where the crowds are flocking Any other comments or questions?
01:14:11: And being defrocked well, dr. Brumbaugh the first pastor of this church was also defrocked
01:14:17: My mother was at his trial and she said that they did not give him an opportunity
01:14:23: To say one word in his own defense at that time Thank you for Mentioning that ma 'am.
01:14:30: I did not know that. I knew that dr. Brumbaugh was affiliated with dr Machen in the independent board, but I didn't realize that he had suffered the same ecclesiastical fate
01:14:40: Well, of course according to the theology we've studied tonight. They're being Excommunicated means they go to hell
01:14:49: Dr. Machen and dr. Brumbaugh because as dr. Lightheart says there's no salvation outside the church and the
01:14:58: Presbyterian Church in 1936 Excommunicated them so it follows that they're in hell
01:15:04: And if you believe that that's a consequence of their theology. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
01:15:09: Thanks for speaking tonight. Dr. Robbins There was one thing that's not sitting quite well with me I want to at least make a statement have you respond to it so it won't really be a question
01:15:17: I found that both with respect to your doctrine of Scripture and tonight with your doctrine of faith that actually what you presented as the
01:15:24: Christian doctrine Departs from the Christian doctrine you mentioned that saving faith is an ascent propositions revealed in Scripture Merely assent to understood propositions the
01:15:35: Westminster larger catechism However says justifying faith is a saving faith wrought in the heart of a sinner by the
01:15:41: Spirit and Word of God Whereby he not only assented to the truth of the promise of the gospel
01:15:47: But receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth for pardon of sin, etc
01:15:54: Of course these three things if anyone's familiar with the history of the theology will understand that they're referring to notitious census and fiduciary
01:16:01: As the three distinct parts of faith, so I wonder how you respond to that that being the
01:16:06: Christian doctrine Which is so divergent from the Westminster doctrine Okay, good question the gentleman that I should have mentioned this myself
01:16:14: But the gentleman has brought up if you read the reformed theologians or some reformed theologians You will find that they analyze faith in the three things fetus they say consists of notitious census and fiduciary
01:16:30: No reformed confession says that in the passage you just read doesn't say that No reformed confession says that although you find some reformed theologians saying that What you see in that passage you read
01:16:42: I think is a misunderstanding of what the passage said When the Westminster theologians wrote that passage they were not focusing on psychology
01:16:51: What they wanted to make clear was what is necessary to be believed? So it's not only assenting to the promise of the gospel
01:17:00: But it's also assenting to the means of salvation which is the person and work of Christ Receiving and resting is a metaphor we talked about people taking
01:17:13: Metaphors literally earlier and making that mistake. It's a metaphor to receive and to rest is a metaphor.
01:17:19: What does it mean literally? Well, what it means is what the confession says there It's assenting and it's assenting not just to the promise of the gospel
01:17:29: But to the person and work of Christ and his imputed righteousness They're making very clear in that passage
01:17:36: Exactly what truths have to be believed in order to be saved It is not sufficient to believe in the promise of eternal life
01:17:45: You also have to believe that the reason for eternal life is the work of Christ They're not making some statement about the psychology of faith
01:17:56: They're focusing on what truths you have to believe and in our subjectivist mindset
01:18:02: We misread that very passage and we think they're talking about Psychology when what they're talking about is which truths we have to believe to be saved
01:18:12: If you want to read it again, it will become obvious. Would you read the passage again, please and Tell us where it is found.
01:18:20: It's found as I'm finding it as an order larger catechism question and answer 72 72.
01:18:26: Okay So I didn't mention anything about psychology incidentally No, I know you didn't but the whole analysis of faith into three things is just a psychological analysis
01:18:35: Well, nor did Turretin or Aquinas or anybody else that mentions it either So I mean this new idea of psychology is not in the mind of Turretin either, but no
01:18:42: No, they didn't use the word psychology, but that's what they're talking about We use the word psychology, but that's what they're talking about fair enough question answer 72 in part.
01:18:51: It's not the whole thing What is justifying faith? Justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of the sinner by the
01:18:58: Spirit and Word of God whereby he ellipsis not only assented to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and Rested upon Christ and his righteousness
01:19:10: Therein held forth for pardon of sin and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation
01:19:18: See they make very clear that they have to believe the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in order to be saved
01:19:25: It's not enough to believe in the promise of the gospel, but they have to believe in the righteousness of Christ They're not making a point about the psychology of faith at all.
01:19:35: They're making a point about which truths you have to believe to be saved so I guess the only last thing I'll say and then
01:19:41: I'll just be quiet is your reading of that seems to betray a singular lack of Sensitivity to the history of the discussion of faith
01:19:49: Oh, well, I'm very sensitive to it. And I think the history of the Latin is completely misleading
01:19:56: Scripture is not written in Latin and when Protestants start exegeting the meaning of faith by using those
01:20:02: Latin terms They sound more like Rome. They sound like they're exegeting the Vulgate. They should be talking about pistou not fetus and That's precisely what
01:20:12: Clark does in his book he examines the incidents the usage of the word pistou belief and and believing and shows exactly how the scriptures use those words
01:20:25: And it's quite different from this Latin Analysis of faith Latin has not been a boon to theological study
01:20:33: To say the least. Yes, sir Thank you, I read your treaties on justification and I talked to you earlier about that and your explanation of imputation which
01:20:46: I tremendously appreciated but what followed those papers was sanctification and You put that I feel in balance like the
01:20:57: Westminster Confession does But in some of your other writings, it seems like because of the battle that you're in with justification
01:21:05: You don't always show them, you know, you don't you don't mention that sanctification is necessary in other words, we vindicate our justification by our works if I Understand that that may be the case
01:21:20: James depending on the opposition. Of course, you're going to have to emphasize different things and that may be the case but those essays that you're referring to anybody can go to our website and read them because We talked about the relationship between Justification and sanctification and why sanctification is a necessary consequence of justification.
01:21:40: So it's all in there Just as Paul does when he talks about the relationship between the two one being a necessary consequence of the other
01:21:49: Yes, sir. Another question back there. Yeah, dr. Robbins. I'm a little bit dismayed at hearing some of your comments
01:21:55: It seems like that you really draw dramatic Points, I don't believe that your portrayal of Auburn Avenue Theology is accurate and you know
01:22:08: I quit taking notes because it was just really just kind of daunting one of the points you made was a correlation between Auburn Avenue and Kierkegaard.
01:22:16: I Don't think that any of the Auburn Avenue proponents would Agree with that.
01:22:23: I don't think any of the Auburn Avenue perform proponents would agree with any one of your 21
01:22:28: Propositions of what they believe you're entitled to your opinion, of course but some of those were direct quotes from the
01:22:34: Auburn Avenue people and I Interrupted the series of 21 propositions by giving you direct quotes from the
01:22:39: Auburn Avenue summary statement of faith in which they said the baptized are the elect and In baptism you receive all the benefits and blessings of the work of Christ However, you can go to hell
01:22:53: Because you don't receive the gift of final salvation That implies among other things final salvation is not one of the benefits and blessings of the work of Christ final salvation is
01:23:05: Received by our own performance They're very clear on that Please do please read
01:23:13: Richard Lasky's I don't know if I mentioned him or not earlier, but he's he's always a good one to read He needs to be tried also and I mentioned that at Synod You need to drop charges against him because what he said here is heresy
01:23:26: This justification requires no transfer or imputation of anything It does not force us to refry righteousness into something that can be shuffled around in heavenly accounting books
01:23:38: Rather because I'm in the righteous one and the vindicated one. I am righteous and vindicated
01:23:45: My in Christliness makes imputation redundant I do not need the moral content of his life of righteousness transferred to me
01:23:54: What I need is a share of the forensic verdict passed over him at the resurrection
01:24:01: Union with Christ is therefore the key Yes, and he's a good disciple
01:24:07: Dick Gaffin. That's precisely Gaffin's theology union with Christ is the key We don't need imputation.
01:24:13: It's redundant Only 11 yes, sir
01:24:26: When Lord Jesus Christ was vindicated and how he was saved that there's a union
01:24:34: Well, Dick Gaffin is the fountainhead of most of this stuff and the gentleman just read from Richard Lasky is simply one of the
01:24:43: Gaffin students repeating what he says and drawing out some of the implications and The central idea as we talked about last night was the resurrection of Christ The resurrection is the vindication of Christ in the resurrection.
01:24:59: He is adopted. He is sanctified he is justified and eventually glorified and because we're united to the resurrected
01:25:08: Christ existentially we too are justified and adopted and sanctified and glorified and as the quote from Rich Lusk makes clear if The union with Christ with the risen
01:25:21: Christ has this effect than imputation is redundant. It's unneeded. It's superfluous But that's how they teach about how
01:25:30: Christ is saved Gaffin talks explicitly about Christ being redeemed and we are redeemed because we are in him and he is redeemed
01:25:37: We are existentially and experientially in him. I should make that clear I'm not at all sure that these theologians would agree with my statement that we are legally and Intellectually in him because they want to use words like experientially and existentially
01:25:54: Legally and intellectually sounds like to use NT Wright's phrase a cold piece of business
01:26:01: Well, if that's a cold piece of business Then they need to readjust their idea of what coldness is because that's what scripture teaches.
01:26:09: They want something warm and fuzzy I guess I'm trying to dredge up the pronunciation of I think it's bearish.
01:26:17: I think it's bearish bearish Okay, if I recall correctly, I don't know My question is can you make a distinction between children of the
01:26:26: Covenant and those that are actually in the Covenant? Can I make a distinction or does scripture make a distinction?
01:26:31: Would you give me what you understand scripture scriptures? Well, we baptize children of believers because we're commanded to do so by scripture
01:26:41: But that doesn't mean that the children are in the covenant of grace Abraham was
01:26:48: Commanded to baptize all his children But Ishmael was not in the covenant of grace if you go back and read the account in Genesis You'll find that God says first He promises these earthly blessings to Ishmael and they would take these theologians and the
01:27:05: Reconstructionists would take these earthly blessings as signs of salvation, but they're obviously not because he says
01:27:12: I'm going to bless Ishmael in this way, but I will make my covenant with Isaac And go back and read that passage now both
01:27:22: Ishmael and Isaac are circumcised But the covenant is made only with Isaac Not with Ishmael So we cannot conclude from the fact that a person bears the sign of the covenant that he is in the covenant it simply doesn't follow and That's why the question 31 says the
01:27:45: Covenant is made with Christ as the mediator and in him with all the elect as his seed
01:27:52: There is no promise in scripture that all the children of believers will be saved
01:27:57: These men keep harping upon the fact we've got to believe the promises of scripture We've got to believe the promises of scripture.
01:28:03: There is no promise in scripture It says all the children of believers will be saved In fact you have throughout scripture examples of children of believers who are not saved
01:28:14: Ishmael's just the start or maybe not even the start perhaps we should start with Cain But there are many children of believers who are not saved in scripture to say that God promises salvation to all the children of believers and then to see in scripture that there are some children of believers who are not saved
01:28:33: Is to say that God breaks his promises This is the very question that Paul deals with in Romans is
01:28:41: God unfaithful to his promises Because the Jews at that time were of the opinion that we have
01:28:49: Abraham as our father we're saved Remember what
01:28:54: John the Baptist said about that in the opening chapters of Luke he says don't even think
01:28:59: To say that you have Abraham as your father He says don't even think it he says
01:29:06: God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones What's the point?
01:29:12: Salvation is not Biologically inherited and some Presbyterians particularly in the
01:29:19: Auburn Avenue group Make the same mistake the ancient Jews did in thinking that salvation is biologically inherited
01:29:28: It isn't that's taught very clearly in the first chapter of John To whom is salvation given?
01:29:36: Not to those who are born of blood or of the will of man but to those who believe to those who receive it's not a biological inheritance and Sometimes I fear for even
01:29:50: Some Presbyterians who don't go along with this stuff because they think that somehow their godly
01:29:55: Heritage is going to save them their godly heritage isn't going to save them now It's good to have a
01:30:01: Christian family, and it's good to have a godly heritage But salvation comes through faith alone
01:30:08: It doesn't come from baptism. It doesn't come from church attendance It doesn't come through participation in the
01:30:16: Lord's Supper It comes through belief of the gospel and belief of the gospel alone.
01:30:22: There was another question up here Oh in the back. There's a question I said in my mind
01:30:27: I can't totally totally understand this and maybe you could comment on this God calls Israel his people
01:30:34: Not all in Israel as you just mentioned Ishmael were saved So in my mind, this is some of the confusion between the two sides it seems to me
01:30:44: Do you think it is possible for us to be called God's people by God and not be his elect?
01:30:51: Well this illustrates once again the importance of carefully defining terms one of the things that the critics of the
01:30:59: Auburn Avenue theologians charged them with is confusing national election with individual election or the other way around and because Israel as a nation was disowned by God that Individual believers can also be disowned by God that the two elections are alike
01:31:22: That there's a corporate election, and there's an individual election, but essentially they're the same both are losable
01:31:30: Both are keepable if they persevere, but both are losable if they don't obey and I think that's a fundamental error is to see the
01:31:40: Corporate election of the nation of Israel in the same terms as the individual election of individual believers and When Paul deals with the question he points out in Romans 9 that all along God's promise has been to a remnant and God has never been unfaithful to his promises that he always fulfills his promises and That in the remnant that is believing in ancient
01:32:08: Israel at Paul's time in the year 2005 God fulfills his promises in the most accurate sense election is always individual in the most strict sense
01:32:21: Any other comments or questions? I see one there Thank you, dr.
01:32:26: Robbins a couple of years ago at an Auburn Avenue conference Doug Wilson remarked that we should in Reference to those who claim to be
01:32:37: Christians who have fallen away either from the faith in doctrine or in their practice even Extending that to those of the
01:32:44: Church of Rome that we should grab them by their baptisms In a sense to hold them accountable to their claim.
01:32:50: What do you think of that? Grab them by their baptisms. Well the baptism of Rome is not a valid baptism
01:32:58: Now I know all you people are going to say well John Calvin thought it was well John Calvin was wrong.
01:33:05: I Don't happen to believe in the infallibility of John Calvin You should read Thornwell on Roman baptism if you want to read a good theological discussion of Roman baptism
01:33:15: Calvin saw very clearly that the Roman Mass was anti -christian to the core
01:33:22: But on the issue of baptism, he didn't see that at all But for the same reasons that the
01:33:28: Mass is not Christian the Roman baptism isn't Christian for the same reason
01:33:34: It doesn't matter that the Trinity is intoned in Roman baptism.
01:33:39: It's intoned in Mormon baptism It's intoned in the baptism of the
01:33:45: Presbyterian Church across the alley And that's not Christian baptism either In Roman baptism so many elements are added to the ritual of baptism that it's a parody of Christian baptism
01:34:00: Far from being the real thing. It's a parody It's making fun of it
01:34:06: So they add salt they add chrism To the water they pronounce that this child is absolved from all sins
01:34:15: This is not Christian baptism Even if they use the name of the Trinity, it's not
01:34:21: Christian baptism It's blasphemous for them to use the name of the Trinity in this So to appeal to a
01:34:28: Romanist on the basis of his baptism is to admit that yeah, his church was right
01:34:35: It's to undercut everything you're trying to do in presenting the gospel to him It's admitting that the
01:34:41: Roman Church in its baptism has in fact saved him if you're going to grab him by his baptism
01:34:47: What needs to be done is the preaching of the gospel Paul makes it very clear. He says I didn't come to baptize
01:34:54: I came to preach So that means that baptism is not going to save these people only the preaching of the gospel will
01:35:01: I? Came to preach the gospel and I see we're out of time. I'm sorry, but I thank you for your kind attention
01:35:08: I thank you for coming this week to hear my lectures as dr. Battle or Chris has said they're on tape they should be available worldwide in a couple of weeks and I hope that you will make some use of some things