I just finished reading this book last week. The last time I went through it was a rather cursory scanning. But a few weeks ago I got out my pen and my ruler and went to work. I thought I would share my thoughts about the essays and then others could join in if they have read it as well.

The Good

The best essay in the book (hands down) is Chris Hutchinson's response to Steve Schlissel's 'messay.' He is acute, pastoral and most of all clear. He is even very gracious where most of us probably would have blown a gasket. He presents the issues in an simple, 'layman' type format. Well done Chris!

Fowler White's essay on "Covenant and Apostasy" was also excellent. He chides the FV men for gross inaccuracies, sloppy methodology and overall silliness in exegesis. He makes some interesting points about the 'typical' apostasy passages which will need further examination.

Over all, the rest of the men write with clarity and charity but their essays did not strike me as being particularly enlightening or devastating to the FV. On the other hand, they simply reiterate what our confessions say on these matters, so for that they ought to be commended. Finally, Calvin Beisner's closing essay gets a big



for summarizing up the differences nicely and putting everything into perspective.

The Bad

Well I'll admit it; I'm biased so it's not as if I am going to give any of the FV men a passing grade. Particularly noteworthy was John Barach's essay on "Covenant and Election." I know John; he's a bright guy, much brighter than me. But I have to say that as I read through his essay I either had a smile on my face or shook my head in disbelief. That someone with such gifts could be so muddled, confused and down right inarticulate is beyond me.

Doug Wilson's fare was typical Wilson nonsense: see-saw back and forth on two different views and make it seem like you are orthodox and then laugh, take a puff from your pipe and scream at people who dare call you on the carpet for your ambiguity.



The Ugly

Lusk, Schlissel and Wilkins. What else do I have to say? Well I will say that it is garbage and not worth reading. I will give them credit, however, for actually being clear about what they believe. If you have any doubt, however, about the orthodoxy of the FV read these men, especially Lusk on justification. Pure nonsense and worthy of discipline.

Anyone else read this book and care to comment? I haven't found many reviews online...

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Auburn Avenue, the Achilles Heel of Presbyterians

Booooooo Auburn Avenue

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

I doubt any real Presbyterian would actually identify the FV as such. Schlissel is a congregationalist, Wilson is patriarchalist, Barach is Reformed, and Leithart/Wilkins are in the PCA but probably not for long.

Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of the Burlington OCRC
Burlington, WA
www.burlingtonocrc.com
Rev. Dan,

Could you please reply with the reference to Spurgeon's works from which your signature is quoted?


Thanks,


Brian

Ligon Duncan has a fine review of this book in the 2005 Confessional Presbyterian Journal. Copies still available! In a recent notice about this new journal, Rowland Ward writes for the September 2005 The Presbyterian Banner: "Ligon Duncan's review of The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons is important as the influence of this thinking is becoming evident in Australia." Dr. Ward also was very kind in his notice of my contribution, saying, "Chris Coldwell's examination (pp 43-64) of the history of [the] text of the Westminster Confession and the work of S.W.Carruthers shows his usual attention to fine detail." I should note that Dr. Ward contributed a fine review of Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul to the journal.
But I digress (did I say copies were still available ). In his review of AATP&C, Ligon Duncan writes of Schlissel and Leithart:

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: Samuel Miller gives a succinct statement of this principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.”

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Beisner's essay was ok--maybe. He would have done a good job if he hadn't shot himself in the foot on page 320 (ftnote 40--I think--I am recalling this from off my head). I stopped taking him seriously when he said that Van Til was the root cause of the problem. Even more embarrassing is when he recommended John Robbins' hatchet job against Van Til with a straight face.

[Edited on 9--13-05 by Draught Horse]

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Van Til is not God and is not correct on all things.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

Nobody said that Van Til is God.

And nobody said that Van Til is correct on all things.

So what's your point?

Jacob...you're unaware, kiddo....our beloved Van Til is not off the hook. One day, you may have to rethink your favoritism for him.

Heads-up.

Robin

__________________
Robin
URCNA
Heidelberg, Ursinus, Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt
Revelation 14:2

I think the Van Til connection etc. would make for a nice thread. Let's not bog down the original intent of this post.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

Thanks Chris R.

Paul Manata has already pointed out the weakness of Beisner's argument about Van Til. I think that says enough about this point. I still say, however, that the essay is worth reading.

And thanks Chris C. for that excellent quote from Duncan. This made me laugh:

I have to say that I disagree with Duncan about Leithart's essay on the Trinity. I found it to be full of holes and mainly because it relies upon an essay written by someone else with little or no scripture reference or serious exegesis.

Any more thoughts on the book?

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by poimen]

For a link to the article of Manata's that he referenced click here

Now back to the scheduled program.

I will only give you the quote if you stop calling me Rev. Dan and call me Daniel. Sorry: I'm a little sensitive about my name.



Anyways, the quote is taken from Ian Murray's book "The Forgotten Spurgeon" pages 82-83. The reference is a collection of sermons: either New Park Street Pulpit or Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit volumes. The number is given as: 18, 621. Volume 18, page 621 I'm guessing.

Chris C.:

Are there electronic copies of the Journal available? I really just want the Duncan review...

Relevance?
Please do not condescend me.
All that I was pointing out was that Beisner WEAKENED what could have been a good essay by making a very unsubstantiated comment (which later proved to be embarrasingly false) against Van Til.

Don't worry. Andrew is glibly tinkering with death. I know where he lives.

Well, AA didn't start in congregationalist churches... and Schlissel isn't a congregationalist because he wants to be-- it's because he has been cut off from the Presbytery. The point is-- Presbyterians get stigmatized for AA whether they assent to the blatantly unsound doctrine or not. Outsiders in the nominally Protestant world wouldn't be able to ascribe their straw man's about Presbyterians being quasi-Catholic or believing in baptismal regeneration so easily but for Auburn Avenue... So, in a tongue-in-cheek fashion it is sort of the Achilles' heel of Presbyterians. Being an outsider to the PCA, I do make it a point to correct people when I hear them ascribe the AA position to all Presbyterians, however, rare such incidents might be. I have heard people say it. Dave Hunt perpetuates the myth in his debate with James White. This is not to ruffle anyone's feathers, as I know it is a hot button for many orthodox and doctrinally sound Presbyterians.

One of the most interesting things I noted in the book was Joe Pipa's response to Wilkins. When I was at AAPC 2002, the immediate comments surrounding Wilkins discussion was about baptismal regeneration. With this the first thought was that he was leaning toward Rome.

What Pipa properly points out is that its not Rome that he is leaning towards but Wittenburg! Wilkins is actually describing a Lutheran view of the sacraments. What's even more interesting is that most of the FV guys have very few nice things to say about Luther and Lutherans!

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thanks for the clarification.

I hope you realize what I said about Schlissel was also tongue in cheek.

:P

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by poimen]

Daniel,
Sorry, no firm plans on that front yet. There is actually quite a bit I think that would be of interest, the Fesko contra Wright being the most substantial, but the reviews in the same area of interest, Ward on Westerholm, Forkner on Shepherd, and Webb on Trail on Justification are all good. And it is only $18 postage paid...
[Edited on 9-13-2005 by NaphtaliPress]

Well you definitely wetting my theological appetite but I still don't know... Many people would be angry in my church if they saw I was reading a Presbyterian periodical!