From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: central carolina overture
Guys,
Here’s the text of the Central Carolina action (our stated clerk just received it)
sw
Whereas on September 26, 2002 the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (hereafter AAPC), of Monroe Louisiana approved a “Summary Statement of AAPC’s Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation”[i] and published it on their official church website as the official church position on these matters ; and
Whereas a study committee of Mississippi Valley Presbytery formed to study and report on “the teachings of Norman Shepherd, N.T. Wright, and the related systems known variously as the New Perspectives on Paul, which redefines Paul’s teaching on justification, and the Federal Vision, which redefines the traditional Reformed interpretation of the covenant concept” has extensively studied the AAPC Summary Statement and identified several places where that document deviates from or contradicts the Westminster Standards[ii] particularly in their teachings on the critical subjects of salvation and perseverance; and
Whereas AAPC has hosted several Pastor’s conferences advocating a theology at odds with Westminster Calvinism called Federal Vision theology and recently hosted another one of these conferences on January 3-5, 2005 which featured Anglican Bishop and New Perspective on Paul proponent N.T. Wright as a guest Speaker; and
Whereas AAPC Senior Pastor Steve Wilkins has recently authored a work entitled “The Federal Vision” which further promulgates this Federal Vision theology; and
Whereas the Federal Vision theology as it is taught and promoted by AAPC appears to be a heresy which strikes at the vitals of religion that is being industriously spread in public; and
Whereas numerous attempts have been made by PCA elders and pastors to reason with the elders of AAPC and to show them where the Federal Vision theology contradicts our standards and the teaching of Scripture[iii]; and
Whereas AAPC has refused to stop actively promulgating this Federal Vision theology, and has instead actively worked to spread it as far and wide as they are able;
Therefore be it resolved that the Central Carolina Presbytery requests that Louisiana Presbytery begin an official investigation into the teachings of AAPC in order to determine whether charges ought to be brought against her senior pastor (BCO 31-2) and whether any advice ought to be given to the Session (BCO 13-9f and 40-4).
Signed,
TE David M. Frierson Stated Clerk, Central Carolina Presbytery
M/S/A by Central Carolina Presbytery on January 22, 2005
[i] Available online at:
http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official%20Positions%20and%20Statements/Covenant%20Baptism.htm
[ii] From “A Critical Overview of the AAPC Summary Statement” available online at:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/MVP%20Report%202004.htm
* This document employs Norman Shepherd’s doctrine of covenantal election: election is to be understood through the lens of the covenant, not through the lens of the decree (§3).
* As a result of this “covenantal” perspective on election, the document operates with only one kind of covenantal membership (§3). It practically denies both the distinction between a non-communicant and communicant membership and the distinction between the visible and invisible church. One who has been “baptized” is termed a “Christian” “because he is a member of the household of faith and the body of Christ” (§10, cf. §5).
* “By baptism one is joined to Christ’s body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work.” (§7). We may note that the union in view is qualified (“covenantally”). It is difficult, however, to qualify the statement “given all the blessings and benefits of His work” in a covenantal or non-decretal sense. The statement affirms, then, a form of baptismal regeneration.
* How may we speak of baptized Christians (so defined)? The document, speaking of Saul, argues that “the Biblical narrative appears to draw no distinction between Saul’s initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those who obtained final salvation” (§10). “The Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect, and even uses the same language for both.” (ibid). Rather, Saul and David “received the same initial covenantal grace” but not “the gift of perseverance” (ibid.). The document practically (perhaps theoretically) denies the distinction between saving and common operations of the Spirit, affirming that to distinguish the two is “a task beyond our competence” (Endnote 1). We speak rather of the undifferentiated grace of God.
* What do apostates possess and what do they lose? The document affirms that apostates “for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ’s cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament” (§8). “In some sense, they were really joined to the elect people, really sanctified by Christ’s blood, really recipients of new life given by the Holy Spirit” (Summary). Presumably these blessings are conferred in baptism. We may speak of these persons as having been “saved” in that “they have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation of Christ,” and yet “not all will persevere in that ‘salvation.’“ (ibid.). These affirmations are vague and apt to confuse. It is not at all clear what the apostate has possessed and what he has lost.
* What distinguishes non-apostates from apostates? Persons apostatize because, though united to Christ, “they did not persevere in fruit-bearing (John 15)” (§11). Those who are non-apostates “keep the terms of the covenant: repent of their sins, believ[e] in Christ, obey His Word, and persever[e] in this faithfulness to the end of their days” (§5). “Only those who continue to persevere in loyalty to the covenant and the Lord of the covenant inherit final salvation. Those who fall away lose the temporary covenantal blessings they had enjoyed” (Summary). The practical distinction between non-apostate and apostate, then, is temporal - the former perseveres and the latter does not. The believer therefore has no means of attaining an “infallible” assurance in the manner set forth in WCF 18.2.
* How can a baptized person fall away? The statement denies that baptism “grant[s] to the baptised final salvation” (§7). Baptism also does not guarantee what is termed the gift of perseverance (§5, 10, Summary). Apparently perseverance and final salvation are not understood to be among “all the blessings and benefits” of Christ’s work (cf. §7). This, however, runs counter to biblical teaching (cf. John 10:27-28, WCF 17.1).
[iii] This includes a 2003 Colloquium on the Auburn Ave. Theology sponsored by Knox Theological Seminary, in which PCA Elders Chris Hutchinson, Rick Phillips, Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, and Cal Beisner all interacted critically with the Federal Vision theology and its proponents (including AAPC Pastors Steve Wilkins and Rich Lusk) and pointed out its numerous departures from Westminster Calvinism.
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:49:38 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: central carolina overture
Steve, with three of your friends missing from presbytery, what are the chances of this? How vulnerable are you?
Mark
PS. Any chance asking for advice from professors outside the presbytery. Doug Green, Jack Collins, Richard Pratt, John Frame, and Dave Wiliams come to mind.
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:00:26 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: central carolina overture
Score one for the bapterians.
Since when did “extra-confessional” become “heresy”?
Since Mark just got approved in his presbytery, maybe he needs to serve as your guys’ counsel?
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:13:22 -0600
From: burke
Subject: central carolina overture
Steve,
Sorry to see such knee-jerk reactionism. You will be in my prayers to our Lord, who loves you and your ilk.
Burke
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:15:11 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: central carolina overture
Also, Reggie Kidd from RTS (Orlando). We had a very encouraging conversation on the flight back from AAPC.
BDN
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:32:41 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: central carolina overture
Steve, with three of your friends missing from presbytery, what are the chances of this? How vulnerable are you?
It’s impossible to say. I don’t think presbytery will do anything but say that we are in the process of studying these matters (which is true and ought to be a sufficient response at present) — but who knows in today’s climate?
PS. Any chance asking for advice from professors outside the presbytery. Doug Green, Jack Collins, Richard Pratt, John Frame, and Dave Wiliams come to mind.
well, as you know, Rich, Jim, Doug W., and I talked with Doug G., Jack C., Pete E., Steven T., Reggie, Mike Williams, Al Groves, and Dan McCartney while they were here at the Pastors Conf. and they seemed to be sympathetic toward our predicament. I’m not sure what they can do at present, other than what they said they would begin to do — i.e. speak out and try to get everyone to calm down. This would be a good time for them to start doing that I think.
sw
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:42:46 -0600
From: burke
Subject: central carolina overture
well, as you know, Rich, Jim, Doug W., and I talked with Doug G., Jack C., Pete E., Steven T., Reggie, Mike Williams, Al Groves, and Dan McCartney while they were here at the Pastors Conf. and they seemed to be sympathetic toward our predicament. I’m not sure what they can do at present, other than what they said they would begin to do — i.e. speak out and try to get everyone to calm down. This would be a good time for them to start doing that I think.
sw
Is that last sentence an attempt at humor, or just good ole southern understatement?
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:13:57 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: central carolina overture
Steve:
Seriously, do you want us to forward the overture to any of these men you mention, or have you done that already?
BDN
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:38:30 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: central carolina overture
Steve:
Seriously, do you want us to forward the overture to any of these men you mention, or have you done that already?
Brian,
I think we can forward it to anyone we please, it’s public and thus, open for examination. It might be good for the sem profs to see what’s happening if they haven’t seen it yet and I haven’t sent it to them (I don’t have the email addresses of all of them) so feel free to do it if you like.
sw
