Auburn Avenue Controversy

[bauerpauer]

Summary Statement of AAPC's Position on the Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation
1. 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 by faith alone. This 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).

2. 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.

3. The covenant is the means by which God administers His salvation in space and time, the historical outworking of His eternal plan. Salvation, therefore, may be viewed from two basic perspectives, the decretal/eternal and the covenantal/historical. The Bible ordinarily (though not always) views election through the lens of the covenant. This is why covenant members are addressed consistently as God's elect, even though some of those covenant members may apostatize, proving themselves to be non-elect in the decretal/eternal sense.

We cannot separate covenant and election, but, to do full justice to the Biblical teaching, we must distinguish them. Following the Biblical model, it seems that we must view fellow church members as elect and regenerate and, at the same time, hold before them the dangers of falling away. This does not contradict the decretal/eternal perspective, because our knowledge of God's decree is only creaturely. We can never, in this life, know with absolute certainty who are elect unto final salvation. For this reason, we have to make judgments and declarations in terms of what has been revealed, namely, the covenant (Dt. 29:29). The covenant is the visible, historical context in which the eternal decree of election comes to eventual fruition.

4. This covenant is made with believers and their children. It is publicly manifested in the Church, the body of Christ which we formally enter by means of baptism. The Church is not merely a human community, and the Church's enactments of the means of grace are not merely human works. They are God's works through His ordained ministers. The Church herself is God's new creation, the city He promised to build for Abraham. The Church is not merely a means to salvation, a stepping-stone to a more ultimate goal. Rather, the Church herself is God's salvation (WCF 25.1,2), the partially-realized goal in history that will be brought to final fulfillment at the last day. When someone is united to the Church by baptism, he is incorporated into Christ and into His body; he becomes bone of Christ's bone and flesh of His flesh (Eph. 5:30). Until and unless that person breaks covenant, he is reckoned among God's elect and regenerate saints.

5. Those who are members of the Church by virtue of their baptism (WCF 28.1) are bound to live faithfully, keeping the terms of the covenant: repenting of their sins, believing in Christ, obeying His Word, and persevering in this faithfulness to the end of their days. This perseverance is a gift of God and not a result of the "willing" or the "running" of the people of God.

6. God uses means by which His Spirit works salvation in the hearts of His elect: the preaching of the Word, the faithful administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, and the communion of the saints (WSC #85,88,91). These means have been entrusted to the Church (WCF 25.3). By these, through the blessing of the Spirit, the Church becomes the "mother of all believers" (Gal. 4:26). Apart from the Church and its ministry of these means of grace, there is ordinarily no salvation (WCF 25.2).

7. By baptism one is joined to Christ's body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; WSC #94). This does not, however, grant to the baptised final salvation; rather, it obligates him 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 covenant by faith, not by works. And even this faith is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.

8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, 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.

9. Salvation depends upon being united to Christ. Clearly, those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God. There are those, however, who are joined to Him as branches in the vine, but who because of unbelief are barren and fruitless and consequently are cut off from the vine and from salvation. Jesus says these "believe for a while" but do not bear fruit unto salvation. Why God would do this is a mystery, but the teaching of Scripture is clear: some whom He adopts into covenant relation, He later hardens (Rom. 9:4, 18, 11:1ff). In such instances God has not changed His decree regarding such people; to the contrary, He carries out His sovereign purposes in and through their unbelief and rebellion. Those elect unto eternal salvation are always distinguished by their perseverance in faith and obedience by the grace of God.

10. 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. 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.

For example, the same language that describes the Spirit coming upon Saul (1 Sam. 10:6) is used when the Spirit comes upon David (1 Sam. 16:13), Gideon (Jdg. 6:34), Jephthah (Jdg. 11:29), and Samson (Jdg. 14:6, 9; 15:14). Yet in four of these five cases (David, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), the man in question was clearly given persevering faith and brought to final salvation by the Spirit's work (cf. Heb. 11:32). The Biblical narrative, however, appears to draw no distinction between Saul's initial experience of the Spirit and the experience of those who obtained final salvation. While God, no doubt, predestined Saul's apostasy (since He foreordains all that comes to pass), God was not the author of Saul's apostasy (cf. WCF 3.1). Saul received the same initial covenantal grace that David, Gideon, and other men who persevered in faith received, but he did not receive the gift of perseverance. At the same time, his failure to persevere was due to his own rebellion. Herein lies the great mystery of God's sovereignty and human responsibility (cf. WCF 3.1, 8). [1]

11. None of those elect unto final salvation can lose that salvation, however much he may backslide (John 10; WCF 17). God preserves all His elect in covenant faithfulness. The Biblical language regarding salvation, however, is more complicated. In one sense, all those in the covenant are "saved." They have been delivered out of the world and brought into the glorious new creation of Christ, but not all will persevere in that "salvation." [2] Jesus spoke of those in the new covenant who would be united to Him, but then cut off because they did not persevere in fruit-bearing (John 15). If Jesus Himself is salvation, are we not forced to conclude that being cut off from Him means being cut off from the source of salvation and from salvation itself?

12. It appears that the Bible speaks of salvation, more often than not, in relational and covenantal categories, rather than in metaphysical ones. "Salvation" is not a thing we possess that can be lost and found, like car keys. It is a matter of being rightly related to God through Christ. But relationships are not static, unchanging entities. They are fluid and dynamic. Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage. If we persevere in loyalty to Christ, we will live with Him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, He will divorce us. It may not be wise to call this "losing one's salvation," but it seems contrary to Scripture to say that nothing at all is lost. To draw such a conclusion appears to deny the reality of the covenant and the blessedness that is said to belong even to those who ultimately prove themselves reprobate (Heb. 10:26ff).

13. With this understanding, the "five points of Calvinism" are still preserved, but they have been enriched by a nuanced covenant theology following the tradition and teaching of Augustine and Calvin. By framing the issues as we have, we are able to preserve God's sovereignty in salvation and hold covenant breakers accountable for their apostasy. Additionally, this view seems to do full justice to the Scripture's teaching on the nature of the Church and efficacy of the sacraments, as well as the genuineness of the covenantal promises and threats. In our formulation of how we understand the application of God's sovereign and covenantal grace, we lose nothing and yet, gain much in our understanding of how the sovereign God applies His salvation in history.


Approved by the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on September 26, 2002.
- http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official%20Positions%20and%20Statements/Position%20Paper.htm (http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official%20Positions%20and%20Statements/Position%20Paper.htm)

I'm not sure what the entire controversy is over in the reformed community but apprently, if I heard correct, the RPCNA sent them 'call to repentance' in which they called them heretics and called them thus to repentance. They countered with a letter back that was excellent. Its a big controversy though. Anybody know what the big stink is about? I would have to say I agree with all their points.

[Ivor Thomas]

For five years I attended a church with these beliefs on Baptism, and on the Holy Spirits work on or in the reprobate. If you would look again at 10 and 12, you will see The Lord willing their errors. Also The whole article conditions salvation on what the church does toward their salvation. Ivor Thomas. :cool:

[bauerpauer]

How so? I think the only thing I differ with them on is the idea that you have to be baptized to be saved. Other then that what is wrong with their theology and can you please give me scripture? I'm just another fool trying to understand.

[Ivor Thomas]

How so? I think the only thing I differ with them on is the idea that you have to be baptized to be saved. Other then that what is wrong with their theology and can you please give me scripture? I'm just another fool trying to understand. With the link you gave go past the article to the end notes scroll down, one of their statements is the non elect are truly brought to Christ by grace, there are many scriptures to prove this false, and I dont think you are a fool, Ivor Thomas:cool: .

[wildboar]

bauerpauer:

I was going to post some thought on this issue but remembered an article by David Engelsma that is clearer and more thorough than my thoughts would have been:


Prof. David Engelsma



Covenantal Universalism:
New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace



The gospel of salvation by grace alone is in mortal danger in virtually every reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denomination in North America.

The threat is a doctrinal movement described variously by its proponents as the “Auburn Avenue theology” (from a Presbyterian church in Louisiana that is a center of the movement), the “federal vision” (because the movement claims to be developing the doctrine of the covenant—“federal” means ‘covenant’), and “objective covenant theology” (because of the movement’s peculiar stress on the objectivity of the covenant).

The essence of the movement is the teaching that the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ within the sphere of the covenant is universal. Every baptized child is object and recipient of the grace of God. Indeed, every one who is validly baptized with water in the name of the triune God receives the saving grace of God, those who eventually are lost as well as those who finally are saved.

The Reformed faith rejects the teaching of universal grace as a heresy. It is a fundamental departure from the gospel to teach that God is gracious in Christ to every human without exception. The movement now threatening the gospel in almost all Reformed churches in North America introduces the heresy of universal grace into the sphere of the covenant.

The right name for the movement is “covenantal universalism.” By this name, I will refer to the movement in this and following editorials, in which I examine this latest threat to the gospel of grace in the Reformed community.

The movement is radical apostasy from the Reformed faith, that is, from biblical, Protestant Christianity. The movement of covenantal universalism rejects the doctrine of justification by faith alone, teaching that the sinner is justified by faith and by the good works of faith. At the same time, it denies all the doctrines of sovereign grace confessed by the Reformed churches in the Canons of Dordt. The movement denies the “five points of Calvinism.” It denies the doctrines of grace in a remarkably open and bold manner.

Nevertheless, covenantal universalism poses a real threat to the Reformed churches. This is evident from the fact that virtually all the supposedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America are knowingly harboring in their bosom officebearers who teach, promote, and defend the heresy. Two of these denominations have already officially sanctioned the error by decision of their broader assemblies in 2003.

The reason why a movement denying all the doctrines of sovereign grace is a threat to these Reformed churches is that the movement is the natural, logical development of the doctrine of the covenant that the churches embrace.

I do not intend in these editorials to repeat what I wrote about this new development of covenant doctrine in an earlier series of editorials under the heading, “The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate” (Standard Bearer, Jan. 1 – April 1, 2003). Those editorials exposed the new development of the doctrine of the covenant as denial of the truth of justification by faith alone.

In these editorials, I will show that covenantal universalism deliberately, systematically, and openly denies all the doctrines of sovereign grace. More importantly, these editorials will trace this denial of the gospel of sovereign grace to the erroneous doctrine of the covenant out of which the denial arises. Most importantly, the present series of editorials will demonstrate that there is one doctrine of the covenant, and one doctrine only, that safeguards the gospel of salvation by the sovereign grace of God in Jesus Christ.



The Men of the Movement

The main interest of this and following editorials is not at all the names of persons, churches, and seminaries, but the doctrine. Nevertheless, it is both right and necessary that readers of this magazine know who the leading teachers of covenantal universalism are and where this contemporary development of covenant doctrine finds a home.

The chief source of covenantal universalism in conservative Reformed circles is the Presbyterian theologian Norman Shepherd. Shepherd taught systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for almost twenty years. After seven years of struggle, on account of Shepherd’s teaching justification by faith and works, the Board of Westminster Seminary “removed” him from the faculty in 1982. Shepherd then joined the Christian Reformed Church, where he served as a pastor until he retired. Rev. Shepherd continues to influence many in virtually all the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America by his recent book, The Call of Grace (P&R, 2000), and by his speeches. A more detailed account of the controversy at Westminster over Shepherd and his teaching is found elsewhere in this issue of the Standard Bearer in the review article, “The Account of a Fallen Seminary and a ‘Falling’ Church.”

Vocal, public proponents and defenders of the new development of the covenant are found in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), and the United Reformed Churches (URC). Shepherd, of course, is a member of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).

Among those who publicly espouse and teach covenantal universalism, or vigorously defend and promote it, are, in addition to Rev. Shepherd, who has great influence in the PCA and in the OPC, Prof. John Frame of the PCA; Rev. Steve Wilkins, also of the PCA; Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., of the OPC; Rev. John Baruch, of the URC; and the independents, Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Steve Schlissel. Wilson and Schlissel have influence in the URC.

The role that the seminaries play in the spread of covenantal universalism is significant. The teaching of Shepherd and Gaffin has made Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia a fountainhead of the erroneous doctrine throughout reputedly conservative Reformed churches worldwide. There is reason to believe that influential men at other reputedly conservative Reformed seminaries are teaching the new development of covenant theology, or are open to the doctrine. John Frame teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.

Ominously, many seminaries remain quiet in the face of one of the gravest threats to the gospel of sovereign grace in the Reformed churches since Dordt. Reformed professors of theology, one of whose main duties according to the Church Order of Dordt is to “vindicate sound doctrine against heresies and errors” (Art. 18), fail, or refuse, to speak out, loudly and insistently, against the grievous threat to the people of God.



Every Child United to Christ

Covenantal universalism teaches that every child of believing parents without exception who is baptized, that is, sprinkled with water in the name of the triune God, is united with Jesus Christ. Every child, indeed every person who is baptized, adult as well as infant, is truly, spiritually, and savingly united with Christ. Every one receives the life and blessings that are in Christ. The teachers of covenant universalism are fond of saying that all without exception are branches united to the vine, in the language of John 15, and that the sap of the vine flows into all of them. Some of these baptized children apostatize later on. They are cut off, so that they perish everlastingly. But these were as truly united to Christ as those who abide in Christ and are saved.

In a speech at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference, John Baruch taught that every one who is baptized is “in Christ.” The “efficacy of baptism” results in communion with the triune God for every baptized person. “Every baptized person,” said Rev. Baruch, “is in Christ and shares in His life.”

Universal grace in the sphere of the covenant!

Belief that every baptized child is in saving union with Christ is one reason why many of these theologians teach and practice “paedo (child)-communion.” Speaking at the 2003 Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision, Douglas Wilson told the conference of theologians that he recently administered the Lord’s Supper to his one and a half-year old grandchild.



Every Child an Elect

Not only is every baptized child of Christian parents saved, but every one is also an elect of God. The teachers of covenantal universalism do not mean merely that the members of the congregation view the children as elect with the “judgment of charity.” All the children are elect. All are chosen by God unto salvation. All alike are elect in the sense that election has in Ephesians 1:4 and in II Thessalonians 2:13. They may very well lose their election, but for the time being they are elect.

At the Colloquium on the Federal Vision at Knox Seminary in Florida last year, Baruch criticized those who distinguish election and covenant. He declared that all those in the covenant by baptism are elect. Every baptized child is an elect in the sense of II Thessalonians 2:13. All are united to Christ. All “really experience His love, but they do not respond with repentance and faith and love.” Significantly, at this point Baruch quoted the “Liberated” Reformed theologian Benne Holwerda in support of his doctrine of universal covenantal election.

Rev. Steve Wilkins also spoke at this colloquium. Referring explicitly to Ephesians 1:4 and II Thessalonians 2:13, he affirmed that every one who is baptized is elect. He went on to say that if baptized members of the congregation “later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect—they are cut off from the Elect One and thus lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship to Christ.”

The appeal to II Thessalonians 2:13 in support of the election of all the children shows that the movement teaches that God loves all the baptized children alike. The text teaches that God has chosen those whom He loves: “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.” According to covenantal universalism, God elects all the children unto salvation because He loves all the children, loves all the children with the love of His covenant in Jesus Christ.

Some of these beloved, elect children unfortunately fall away and become hated reprobates, who perish in hell, but all were originally elect.

Covenantal universalism!



The Death of Christ for Every Child

It is the teaching of covenantal universalism that Christ died for every baptized child of godly parents. This is necessarily implied by the teaching that all are savingly united to Christ and by the teaching that God loves and chooses them all. Besides, the very baptism that is supposed to signify, if it does not effect, union with Christ for all without exception is the sign and seal of washing in Jesus’ blood, that is, the cross.

The teachers of the new form of covenant theology boldly declare that Christ died for all baptized children, indeed for every baptized member of the covenant community. John Baruch told his audience at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference that “Jesus died for every baptized member of the congregation, head for head.” He denied that this was merely a judgment of charity.

Universal covenantal atonement!



Resistible Grace in a Conditional Covenant

Universal grace does not, however, mean universal salvation. The reason, according to the teachers of covenantal universalism, is that covenant grace is resistible. When the baptized children grow up, they can resist the grace of God in Christ. Resisting grace, they are cut off from Christ. Many do resist the grace of God that began a good work in them, and perish forever.

The grace of the covenant is resistible, because the covenant is conditional. As regards its initial establishment with every baptized child, the covenant is unconditional. At baptism, God brings every child into covenant union with Christ by grace alone. But for its continuance and perfection, the covenant depends upon the acts of the children themselves. These acts are faith and a life of obedience. Faith and obedience are conditions of the covenant. Since the continuance and perfection of the covenant are, in fact, the everlasting salvation of a person, the salvation of every baptized child depends upon the child’s works of believing and obeying. By not believing and obeying, a child resists grace.

Here, of course, is the point at which justification by faith and works is introduced into the theology of covenantal universalism. If universal covenant grace depends for its efficacy upon works of the child, the righteousness of the member of the covenant is by faith and works. A conditional covenant implies justification by works. Indeed, in a conditional covenant faith itself is a work of the sinner upon which righteousness and salvation depend.

Justification by faith and works on the basis of a conditional covenant is the heart and soul of Norman Shepherd’s The Call of Grace (P&R, 2000).

Virtually all forms of the heresy of universal grace necessarily teach that grace is resistible. The only exception is the universalism that holds the final salvation of all men without exception. Covenantal universalism is not an exception. Universal covenant grace is definitely resistible.



The Falling Away of Covenant Saints

It is an important teaching of the men who proclaim covenantal universalism that some who were savingly united to Christ, were elect of God, were justified, and were redeemed by the cross fall away and perish forever. In fact, the teachers of covenantal universalism like to emphasize this alarming feature of their covenant doctrine. They insist that they want to do justice to the notable warnings in Scripture against apostasy, especially Hebrews 6:4-8 and Hebrews 10:29. One can only fall away, they say, if once he was actually, savingly in Christ. Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10, they assert, are real warnings about a real possibility for every member of the church without exception. Rev. Wilkins emphasized this in a speech on “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” at the colloquium at Knox Seminary.




Those who ultimately prove to be reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption, possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and fall short of the grace of God…. The apostate doesn’t forfeit “apparent blessings” that were never his in reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God (emphasis, Wilkins’).



Against those who object to their doctrine of the apostasy of many who were once united to Christ, justified, and elect, they charge that we do not do justice to the warnings against falling away. Thus we contribute to the carelessness of life of many in the churches.

On the point of the possibility of the falling away of men and women who once were saved, the teachers of covenantal universalism are bold. They do not hesitate to suggest that Reformed churches must “re-think” the confessional doctrine of the perseverance of saints. What they mean is that perseverance, as taught in the fifth head of doctrine of the Canons of Dordt, does not hold in the covenant. Covenantal universalism emphatically affirms the falling away of covenant saints.

Covenantal universalism attacks every one of the truths of the gospel of sovereign grace.

Covenantal universalism attacks every one of the truths of sovereign grace as these truths apply to the covenant. In the sphere of the covenant, God elects all with a losable election. In the sphere of the covenant, Christ died for all with a death that fails to redeem many. In the sphere of the covenant, the Spirit regenerates and justifies all with a regeneration and justification that assure the salvation of none. In the sphere of the covenant, many resist grace that has actually begun to save them, and perish.

In the sphere of the covenant, God’s grace is not sovereign. In the sphere of the covenant, God is not sovereign. The question is, “For covenantal universalism, who is sovereign in the covenant?”

In the sphere of the covenant, all of us must live in the terror, day and night, that we may well fall away from Christ and salvation into perdition. Present union with Christ, present redemption, present justification, and even present assurance of election mean absolutely nothing. All may be lost, for all is conditional.

This is the doctrine that is spreading in virtually all the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches. This is the doctrine that the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches and learned Presbyterian divines cannot condemn. This is the doctrine that the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches are tolerating. This is the doctrine that some of the reputedly Reformed and Presbyterian churches are now sanctioning by official ecclesiastical decision.

[wildboar]

A pamphlet which discusses more thoroughly the root problem of the Auburn controversy which is the popular doctrine of some type of conditional covenant in reformed circles can be found here and also ordered in booklet form from the adress listed. The Unconditional Covenant in Contemporary Debate (http://www.prca.org/current/Articles/The%20Unconditional%20Covenant%20in%20Contemporary %20Debate.htm)

[bauerpauer]

Thanks alot! Its late so i'll read it tomorrow but i'm really just trying to wade through it all. They seem scriptual but I suppose even Satan uses scripture. Thanks WB and Ivor

[doctr_of_grace]

YUCK!!!! I think I will have a talk with my pastor about this ... Thanks for bringing it to my attention bauer and thanks for the articles guys.

[Robert R. Higby]

This controversy reveals the hearts of men more than anything I can imagine. I resigned 'non-profit corporation' membership (a joke) in the PCA based on these principles and have never 'signed up' again with anyone.

The PCA (like the OPC) has its head buried in the sand; having not a clue of the true implications of the gospel.

[Robert R. Higby]

This doctrine of 'conditional' New Covenant is in essence the same as the 'conditional time-salvation' doctrine taught by many Primitive Baptists. It denies the NT gospel ENTIRELY, attempting to totally divorce the work of the Holy Spirit in assuring the elect from the work of Christ. Those who teach it are engaging in the very worst deceptions of the devil, in my estimation. According to the testimony of scripture, they will end up in the lake of fire unless the Lord (in the final analysis) changes their hearts to love the true gospel.

After this Auburn Avenue controversy, I can never again join any church in non-profit corporation membership.

[Eileen]

BT:

I looked into my own 'denomination' corporate status quite some time ago as I was bothered by the implications of a 501c non-profit idea. I was promised a copy of the actual document but haven't seen that yet.

It is a coming together of state and church, so would you elaborate on your thoughts of all the implications that entails? I have heard that if your church is a non-profit corp the government actually has some control over what is preached from the pulpit, but have been assured on the other hand that that is not true.

The premise seems all wrong to me somehow, but I'm not fully convicted of the why.

If you have the time, thanks!

[wildboar]

If you have 501c status you cannot use the pulpit or distribute literature to support political candidates. That's not the purpose of the pulpit anyhow so I don't have a big problem with it.

[John 6-37]

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=1825

Also see the above thread!

[Robert R. Higby]

Eileen asks:
I looked into my own 'denomination' corporate status quite some time ago as I was bothered by the implications of a 501c non-profit idea. I was promised a copy of the actual document but haven't seen that yet.

It is a coming together of state and church, so would you elaborate on your thoughts of all the implications that entails? I have heard that if your church is a non-profit corp the government actually has some control over what is preached from the pulpit, but have been assured on the other hand that that is not true.

The premise seems all wrong to me somehow, but I'm not fully convicted of the why.

On the 501c issue, it is more related to the power that the government might exercise in the future than what is restricted today. Today, a particular candidate for office cannot be endorsed publicly in meetings--tomorrow the state may very well demand that 'equal opportunity' be practiced in employment, worship, doctrine, and membership (we can all imagine what that might ultimately entail). Left-leaning politicians in state committees across the land are trying to bring these requirements in now--but such ideas and plans usually do not get as far as the legislature--yet.

Naturally, I am convinced that Christian assemblies should stay as far away from government control as possible. Privacy of donor-records was given up years ago in order to grab the 'brass ring' of tax deductibility of gifts. That was a big, big mistake and has only led to further power-mongering.

My statement was made in haste with some over-charged emotion. Today, I do not see how I would ever be attracted to this type of membership again (although I still attend worship in a church almost every week). I'm not recommending that others do like myself; it is a matter of individual conviction.

[bauerpauer]

i see why its not right, i'm starting to shun away from covenant theology and move more towards NCT.. i'm still confused on the difference between Israel in ct and nct..

[JoToP]

One of the flaws in biblical usage among the Federal Vision theologians is the allegorization of the Parable of the Vine as the last word on union with Christ. Here they use union with Christ as something synonymous with membership in the Church. I believe it was Rev. Wilkens who actually crossed that line and identified the Church with Christ, at least in one of his odd logical metaphors. (Wilkens' view of the Trinity [as "in covenant" with one another and exercising faith, which is a communicable attribute] is especially disturbing to me and I wonder that the other gentlemen do not speak to this view.) The Parable of the Vine must be interpreted in conjunction with all other passages dealing with union with Christ. In John 12:23-26 (and three chapters before the Parable of the Vine), Jesus says, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. [25] Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. [26] If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him." Jesus, in speaking of his own death quickly moves to the believer's death to sin in intimate association with his death. Union with Christ is union in death and resulting resurrection which leads to the bearing of fruit. If one does not die to sin, that person is alone... not in union with Christ. If one does die, they bear fruit and the bearing of fruit defines union with Christ. This does not come out as clearly in the Parable of the Vine because that parable is meant to show where the life of the believer comes from. The seed statement given above goes further and reveals the result of the life in union with Christ. So, union with Christ must result in the bearing of spiritual fruit, fruit which has its origin in the restored life of the one who is spiritually alive and since Christ promises to finish the work of salvation that he begins in the believer, it becomes clear that the assurance of salvation comes from the evidence of spiritual fruit developing in the life of the believer, not in a sacriment that admits church membership. This agrees perfectly with I John where he writes in order that the believer may know his true relationship to Christ.