Theology That Bites Back
“The new life I am talking about consists of a Father transplant . . . Certain covenant members have God for their father in one senses (John 8:37), and the devil for their father in another (John 8:44). Other covenant members have only God for their Father (John 8:42). If God is your Father, in this sense, then you love Jesus, pure and simple, and the devil is not your father in any sense.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 826
“The reason for stating it this way is that a theological dilemma is created if we postulate that every baptized Christian is given all of Christ, in the same ways and in the same respect, and that some of them ‘commit suicide.’ If this is the case, and if some covenant members can in fact commit that spiritual suicide, then this has to mean that Christ is not our perseverance, and that it has to come to us (if it comes to us) in some other fashion. If it comes from within ourselves, then this pushes us in an Arminian direction. If it comes from God, then God is doing something salvific for the elect apart from Christ, which would create a separate cluster of problems. The only way I can see that extricates us from this dilemma is to opt for the classic Reformation understanding of the new birth—that there must be a qualitative distinction in those who are saved, a distinction separating them from unsaved covenant members. They are not all Israel that are of Israel (Rom. 9:6).”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, pp. 825-826
“This, in my view, confused the difference between the early creeds of the Church—which distinguished Christian from non-Christian—and the confessions of the Reformation era—which distinguished Reformed from Lutheran, and so on. There is no such thing as an ‘in-house’ heretic. Heretics ought to be rejected by every Christian communion, and not just by one or two of them.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, pp. 824-825
[In response to Scott Clark’s claim he doesn’t need to meet with me because he “can read English”]
“The blunt answer, which cannot really be softened, is ‘no, he cannot read English.’ Let me take one example that Clark likes to use. He says that FV teaches that baptism puts everyone in a state of grace, which is then maintained by the believer through his own covenantal faithfulness. Is that not a fair summary of what Clark says I teach? Well, here is some English for Clark to read. I think that such doctrine is bad juju. I believe that it would be what theologians of another era might call a lie from the pit of Hell. I hope that one day I might be privileged to soak this doctrine in lighter fluid and set a match to it. If I ever found this doctrine on a sheet of paper in my office somewhere, I would run it through the shredder. Prior to my weekly dump run, I search my house for any traces of this doctrine so that I might throw it in the back of my pickup truck in order to take it out to the landfill along with all the bottles, empty ice cream cartons, grapefruit rinds, and coffee grounds. So the next time you read Scott Clark saying that I teach some form of this, you should probably say to yourself, ‘Hmmm. No speakee.’”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 821
“It is a mistake to think that ruptures with the heretics are something you can practice for by conducting ruptures with the saints.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 818
“Since the confessions don’t tell us how many yards of law to use, or how many pounds of grace must be included, this means that we cannot judge on the basis of touchy-feely emphases.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 815
“This is a body [the SJC of the PCA] which has determined, in effect, that Leithart was falsely accused, and yet that the false accusations were provoked, in part, by terminological carelessness. We should take the vindication in hand, and take the caution to heart.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 812
“I do not propose that we do what our opponents did when various pronunciamentos were released by various Reformed denominations, denouncing what they thought were the tenets of what they thought was something called the Federal Vision. What that tactic was consisted of announcing that the whole thing was now settled, that all legit Reformed denominations were taking this stand, united in the true gospel, and that the only thing for us troublemakers to do was to shuffle off, suitably abashed. That wasn’t legitimate for them to do then, and it is not legitimate for us to do now. The only lady who has sung to this point is a welterweight.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 805
“When something starts to happen, all kinds of people are attracted to it, for various reasons. Not surprisingly, they want to help steer the movement in a direction consistent with why they showed up in the first place. But people are coming from all directions, including from some good directions, and this is why it takes some time for the whole thing to sort out and set up. Complicating the set-up period is the arrival of pistol-fanning heresy hunters, acting like they were Annie Oakley doing trick shots. Unfortunately, buying a gun is not the same thing as learning how to aim it, and waving the Westminster Confession overhead is not the same thing as reading it.”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 803
“Whenever you are dealing with a new movement, identification of what that movement is all about is a lot trickier than, say, analyzing some fossilized denomination. With the latter, all you have to do is read the little inscription next to the glass case, and you know exactly what they stand for. But when something new is happening, it can take a bit of time for the whole thing to ‘set up.’”
The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, pp. 802-803
