AA Heterodoxy Response

[Romans922]

What do you guys think of this: Auburn Avenue Defense June 8th, 2006

AAPC Session´s Response to Charges of "Heterodoxy"

Over the past few years numerous false charges against us have been repeated over the Internet, in conferences, by study committees, and through various media. It has now even come to the point where one Presbytery in the PCA has called for our removal from office (see "Overture 22" to the 34th General Assembly of the PCA from Suncoast Florida Presbytery). Thus, in an effort to repudiate these charges (at least the most prominent of them; there are others which are less significant though equally false), we have adopted the following affirmations and denials:

1. We affirm that justification is received by faith alone and is not grounded in any sense upon man´s works.

We further affirm the imputation of Christ´s righteousness to the sinner. We have never viewed human works as the ground (either partial or total) of justification before God. We have never taken any exception to the statement of this truth found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms. We unanimously adopted our summary statement on "Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation" which included this affirmation in the first point:

"Salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not of works. It is founded upon the obedience, death, and resurrection of the faithful Second Adam, Jesus Christ. Justification is an act of God´s free grace wherein sinners are accepted as righteous in God´s sight by virtue of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone (WSC Q. 33). This justifying faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces and virtues (WCF 11.2). Justifying faith, therefore, is never vain but one that works by love (Gal. 5:6)."

This is the position we have always held, never denied, and, God willing, a position from which we will never depart.

2. We deny the common view of "baptismal regeneration"

"” i.e., that one is transformed by the water of baptism, granted regeneration and effectual calling (in the Westminster Confession sense of the term) and infallibly saved solely upon the basis of baptism. Our pastors have consistently taught that baptism apart from faith is not saving but damning. Indeed, we believe that baptism obligates the one baptized to repent of his sins, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ solely for salvation, and persevere in faith all his days.



3. We affirm the teaching on "election" in the Westminster Standards (WCF III.6). In our "Summary Statement" we unanimously adopted this statement:



"From before the foundation of the world, God has sovereignly chosen a multitude no man can number for salvation. The basis of His election was solely His grace and mercy and nothing in the creature. The number of the elect can neither increase nor diminish. All who were chosen by God from the beginning will be surely saved eternally. Not one will be lost."

This continues to be our view. We do believe, however, that the terms "elect," "chosen," etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members of the visible church (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2) and not restricted to those who were chosen to eternal salvation. To affirm this, however, does not require a denial of the teaching of the Confession. It is simply acknowledging the fact that our theological usage of these terms is often more narrow than the biblical usage.

4. We affirm the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" Church that is made in our confessional Standards.

The Confession, however, does not view the "invisible Church" as an entity that exists above or beyond the visible church but rather defines it as the "whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;""” in other words, the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day. It is only "invisible" in that we can´t see all the members of it now. It seems better to us to speak of the "invisible" church simply as the "eschatalogical church""” i.e., the church in its perfection as it will exist at the last day. Ultimately, only the "invisible Church" will partake of the blessings of eternal salvation. In history, however, the Church consists of those who are elect unto final salvation and those who are not. There are those who are members of the church but who are not ordained to persevere in faith, yet they are, like unfaithful Israelites, still members of the Church, though in the sense that they harbor unbelief, they can be said to be not "of" the Church. But here again all we´re acknowledging is that the Church in history is a mixed body.



5. We do not deny the possibility of "infallible assurance" as mentioned in our Standards.



We believe the best way to attain this assurance, however, is to look to Christ and trust His promises which are proclaimed to us by the Word and confirmed and sealed to us in the sacraments. This is far better than delving into the recesses of the heart to try to discern if there has been "sincere repentance" or "true, saving faith" or to search for "genuine fruit of the Spirit." Introspection can leave the individual in a state of perpetual doubt given the possibility of self-deception. It seems far better to trust in God´s promises of salvation as they are set forth in His Word, secured in the person and work of our Savior, and sealed and confirmed by the sacraments.



6. We do believe that there is a distinction between those elect unto eternal salvation and the reprobate who are members of the Church.



Contrary to numerous accusations, we have affirmed this in our "Summary Statement":

"Once baptized, an individual may be truly called a "˜Christian´ because he is a member of the household of faith and the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). However, not all who are "˜Christians´ in this sense will persevere to the end. Some will "˜fall from grace´ and be lost (Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). Though the difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who "˜believe for a while´ is not merely one of duration (i.e., God works "˜effectually´ in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief), 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."

This reality is reflected in the covenant relationship of marriage. Though men may be equally married in the eyes of the law, they may have quite different marriages in terms of the quality of their relationships with their wives. The presence or absence of biblical love makes a huge difference in the quality of the marital bond, though it does not affect their legal status as married men. So it is in the Church. Some members of the Church are "effectually" (savingly) joined in union with Christ by faith while others are not.

These accusations continue to be repeated by others against us. We publish these affirmations and denials simply to testify to our actual theological position and to expose these accusations as inaccurate, unfounded, and irresponsible.

The fact is that we continue joyfully to affirm the doctrines set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms "” apart from the exception we have taken regarding the admission of baptized children to the Lord´s Supper [and we should note that in submission to the church and to our Standards, we do not practice our view but require professions of faith from all children before their admission to the Lord´s table in accordance with our BCO]. Though, we do not believe that our Standards say all that can be said about these doctrines (what man-made document can?) and though we do encourage doctrinal development and maturity along the lines suggested in our "Summary Statement" (in the spirit of "semper reformanda") this in no way means that we have rejected those truths contained in our doctrinal standards. Those who make accusations to the contrary are bearing false witness against us.

Approved unanimously by the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on June 8, 2006

[Edited on 8-12-2006 by Romans922]

 

[MW]

1. We affirm that justification is received by faith alone and is not grounded in any sense upon man´s works.

"Grounded" is the operative word. The Response regrettably goes on to alter the wording of the Shorter Catechism:

Justification is an act of God´s free grace wherein sinners are accepted as righteous in God´s sight by virtue of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone (WSC Q. 33).

The Catechism says "ONLY for the righteousness of Christ." The removal of this exclusive qualification creates suspicion, especially when connected with the statement that justification is not "grounded" in man's works, as in the opening of the Response. An action can still have instrumentality when it is not the grounds. Hence the Response does not explicitly exclude works.

2. We deny the common view of "baptismal regeneration"

"” i.e., that one is transformed by the water of baptism, granted regeneration and effectual calling (in the Westminster Confession sense of the term) and infallibly saved solely upon the basis of baptism. Our pastors have consistently taught that baptism apart from faith is not saving but damning. Indeed, we believe that baptism obligates the one baptized to repent of his sins, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ solely for salvation, and persevere in faith all his days.

"Solely upon the basis of baptism," as if the water itself did the work, is a qualification all would make. The question is this, Is a person regarded as regenerate because he has been baptised? The standards teach sacramental union between the sign and thing signified, and so the answer is, No. Only when the grace is operative is the sacrament efficacious.

3. We affirm the teaching on "election" in the Westminster Standards (WCF III.6).

However, note the qualification:

This continues to be our view. We do believe, however, that the terms "elect," "chosen," etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members of the visible church (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2) and not restricted to those who were chosen to eternal salvation.

This confuses the issue because no distinguishing term has been used for this "other" election, e.g., corporate election. If it is corporate, it is not individual; yet the statement does not rule out the use of this "other" election with reference to individuals.

Moreover, the Scripture texts referred to are not examples of corporate election. These are normally regarded by the reformed tradition as teaching unconditional, individual election, especially 2 Thess. 2:13 and 1 Pet. 1:1-2. Only Col. 3:12 could be taken either way, because it is exhorting to action on the basis of profession. Overall the Response has failed to clarify its orthodoxy.

4. We affirm the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" Church that is made in our confessional Standards.

No, the Response does not affirm the Confessional teaching, but immediately proceeds to alter the Confessional position:

It seems better to us to speak of the "invisible" church simply as the "eschatalogical church""” i.e., the church in its perfection as it will exist at the last day. Ultimately, only the "invisible Church" will partake of the blessings of eternal salvation. In history, however, the Church consists of those who are elect unto final salvation and those who are not.

According to the Westminster Standards, the ministry and ordinances are given to the visible church for the sake of the invisible church. Hence the invisible church is an operative entity within the present economy.

The first explanation of the visible church in the Standards is that it is the"kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" (WCF 25:2); hence it is the visible expression of the invisible church. Subsequently, those who do not belong to the invisible church in reality do not belong to the visible church either. They are abnormal growths, not members of the body. Bad fish to be cast away, as the proof text of the Confession shows. Hence the statement errs when it goes on to say:

There are those who are members of the church but who are not ordained to persevere in faith, yet they are, like unfaithful Israelites, still members of the Church, though in the sense that they harbor unbelief, they can be said to be not "of" the Church. But here again all we´re acknowledging is that the Church in history is a mixed body.

In the words of the apostle, They are not all Israel, which are of Israel. They are not all the visible church which are of the visible church. Unfaithful Israelites are no Israelites at all in foro Dei. They are only regarded as church members in foro ecclesiae. By failing to qualify in whose court the visible church is mixed, the Response has made a fatal error.

5. We do not deny the possibility of "infallible assurance" as mentioned in our Standards.

But,

We believe the best way to attain this assurance, however, is to look to Christ and trust His promises which are proclaimed to us by the Word and confirmed and sealed to us in the sacraments. This is far better than delving into the recesses of the heart to try to discern if there has been "sincere repentance" or "true, saving faith" or to search for "genuine fruit of the Spirit." Introspection can leave the individual in a state of perpetual doubt given the possibility of self-deception. It seems far better to trust in God´s promises of salvation as they are set forth in His Word, secured in the person and work of our Savior, and sealed and confirmed by the sacraments.

The statement is to be esteemed for refocussing assurance on the objective work of Christ and participation with Him in the external fellowship of the church. This has been lacking for too long. However, subjective marks of grace abound in the Scriptures, and that for the very purpose of not presuming upon external privileges. The Confession upholds this delicate balance, while the statement casts aspersions on subjective and internal marks of grace.