I just read Dr. Pipa’s summary critique of ‘Federal Visionism’, and my reaction, I’m afraid, is a bit less than it should be. He gave a lot of quotes, mostly of Wilson and Wilkins… but the trouble is that that’s about all he did. He qouted them, and then went on, assuming (I think) that his point was proven. You can almost hear him shouting “Aha! Get around that, sucker!” after some of the quotes, while you’re just looking at him, sort of embarassed for him, thinking ‘um… where’s the problem?’. Here’s one example:

A further methodological problem is in the area of definitions. The imbalanced formulations with respect to covenant and church have led Federal Vision proponents to redefine or ambiguously define election, regeneration, justification, adoption. For example, when Wilson attempts to apply his construct to the issue of election, it leads to serious confusion. Consider this statement: “This does not mean the elect can loose their salvation, they cannot.” Thus far he seems to be using the term as it has been historically used. But he continues, “But it does mean that branches can lose their position on the tree. You can be on the tree, someone can be on the tree right next to you and he is as much on the tree as you are, he’s as much a partaker of Christ as you are, he is as much a member of Christ as you are and he is cut away and you are not and you stand by faith, so don’t be haughty, but fear.” What we have said with respect to election is true as well in the redefinition of regeneration.

So, what’s the problem? He appears to think that Wilson has contradicted himself by saying ‘the elect can’t lose their salvation and the elect can lose their salvation’. But where does he get that idea? Why does he think Wilson said that? How does Pipa come to believe that Wilson is monkeying around with the definition of election here? Wilson says that the elect cannot lose their salvation, but there are people that are really and truly connected to Christ that can be cut off from Him (or, put another way, he just paraphrased a bit of Romans 11). How does that deny the ‘traditional’ understanding of election that Pipa is using?

A page or so later, he writes, “Their [the Federal Vision proponents] maintaining that a baptized person should think of himself as elect and justified until he apostatizes hinders a true assurance.” My first reaction was to be shocked that he would say the FVers teach that one can lose their election, especially so shortly after quoting Wilson above, where it is made obvious this is not the case. But upon further reflection, I was wrong about that. I don’t think Pipa is saying that’s what FVers believe. But then I’m still left somewhat shocked, because I don’t know what in the world he’s trying to say. Does he think doubting our election is the way to secure assurance? The statement seems like a real oxymoron.

Auburn Avenue Theology Colloquium

Have you noticed people nearly paralyzed in their Christian lives because, try as they might, they get no assurance of their salvation?

Or, at the opposite extreme, are you troubled by the rampant antinomianism in American Christianity?

As you’ve puzzled over these issues, you’ve heard that some Christian leaders, speaking at the 2002 and 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conferences, have come up with ideas about covenant theology, the objectivity of the covenant, the sacraments, and the relationship of faith and obedience that they believe will address both errors, afflicting the presumptuous and comforting the afflicted.

But you’ve also heard that other Christian leaders have charged those men with errors about the gospel, justification by faith, and fidelity to their denominational confessions.

What are you to think?

Here you can read papers exchanged and discussed by seven proponents of the Auburn Avenue Theology/Federal Vision and seven of its critics and judge for yourself. The papers were prepared for the 2003 Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision and are published for the first time here.