In January 2002 Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe Louisiana, hosted a pastors' conference that included the subject "The Federal Vision: An Examination of Reformed Covenantalism." The views presented at that conference (as well some subsequent conferences) became known as the “Auburn Theology”.
Not long after that conference, a report was issued within the PCA condemning the views associated with the “Auburn Theology”.
On today’s “Calling For Truth” Radio Program, our guest will be Dr. Guy Waters who recently wrote a book entitled, “The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology”. During the program we will discuss some of the major beliefs associated with the Federal Vision.
Beliefs that include:
The Nature of Salvation (Justification) and the role of the Church in that Salvation – those who advocate the FV reject the modern Evangelical emphasis on a subjective, personal experience in salvation. It its place they stress the importance of Covenant and connection with the Church.
The Nature of the Sacraments (Baptism and The Lord’s Table) – those endorsing the FV view as an entrance into both the Covenant and the Church. Additionally, they promote the idea of Baptismal Regeneration (although by “regeneration” they mean something closer to Sanctification rather than the New Birth).
The FV proponents also view the Lord’s Table as much more than just a memorial and their practice of allowing children to partake has been the subject of much controversy.
To listen to the program, click on the words "Read more"
9th Commandment Shattered Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-10 12:31:14You said you didn't want to put words in FV adherents' mouths but then went on to do the same. Sadly, you facilitated another one-sided presentation by Dr. Waters in which no FV adherent would have recognized their position. I appeal to you to have Steve Wilkins or Doug Wilson on your show to present their side. Dr. Waters failed to mention that at least two PCA presbyteries (MO and LA) have accepted FV adherents within the bounds of historical reformed theology.
Disappointed Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-10 13:54:22I was extremely disappointed with the interview. A lot of misinformation and half-truths.
Here is the Reformed view of Baptsim taken from Calvin's catechism for children:
M. That the meaning of both may be more clear to us, let us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of Baptism?
S. It consists of two parts. For, first, Forgiveness of sins; and, secondly, Spiritual regeneration, is figured by it. (Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:4)
M. What resemblance has water with these things, so as to represent them?
S. Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as bodily stains are washed away by water.
M. What do you say of Regeneration?
S. Since the mortification of our nature is its beginning, and our becoming’ new creatures its end, a figure of death is set before us when the water is poured upon the head, and the figure of a new life when instead of remaining immersed under water, we only enter it for a moment as a kind of grave, out of which we instantly emerge.
M. Do you think that the water is a washing’ of the soul?
S. By no means; for it were impious to snatch away this honor from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains:, and render us pure and unpolluted in the sight of God. (1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7.) And we receive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a seal in the Sacrament.
M. But do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution?
S. I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it; for God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism, and received by us.
M. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?
S. Many precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacmmeret loses nothing of its nature.
M. Whence is Regeneration derived?
S. From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken together. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a manner buried, so as no more to be in rigor in us. Our reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of God, is the result of the resurrection.
M. How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism?
S. If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit.
M. What must we do in order to use Baptism duly?
S. The right use of Baptism consists in faith and repentance; that is, we must first hold with a firm heartfelt reliance that, being purified from all stains by the blood of Christ, we are pleasing to God: secondly, we must feel his Spirit dwelling in us, and declare this to others by our actions, and we must constantly exercise ourselves in aiming at the mortification of our flesh, and obedience to the righteousness of God.
M. If these things are requisite to the legitimate use of Baptism, how comes it that we baptize Infants?
S. It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism.
M. Can you demonstrate by reason that there is nothing absurd in this?
S. Yes; if it be conceded to me that our Lord instituted nothing at variance with reason. For while Moses and all the Prophets teach that circumcision was a sign of repentance, and was even as Paul declares the sacrament of faith, we see that infants were not excluded from it. (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 4:11.)
M. But are they now admitted to Baptism for the same reason that was valid in circumcision?
S. The very same, seeing that the promises which God anciently gave to the people of Israel are now published through the whole world.
M. But do you infer from thence that the sign also is to be used?
S. He who will duly ponder all things in both ordinances, will perceive this to follow. Christ in making us partakers of his grace, which had been formerly bestowed on Israel, did not condition, that it should either bemore obscure or in some respect less abundant. Nay, rather he shed it upon as both more clearly and more abundantly.
M. Do you think that if infants are denied baptism, some thing is thereby deducted from the grace of God, and it must be said to have been diminished by the coming of Christ?
S. That indeed is evident; for the sign being taken away, which tends very much to testify the mercy of God and confirm the promises, we should want an admirable consolation which those of ancient times enjoyed.
M. Your view then is, that since God, under the Old Testament, in order to show himself the Father of infants, was pleased that the promise, of salvation should be engraven on their bodies by a visible sign, it were unbecoming to suppose that, since the advent of Christ, believers have less to confirm them, God having intended to give us in the present day the same promise which was anciently given to the Fathers, and exhibited in Christ a clearer specimen of his goodness.
S. That is my view. Besides, while it is sufficiently clear that the force, and so to speak, the substance of Baptism are common to children, to deny them the sign, which is inferior to the substance, were manifest injustice.
M. On what terms then are children to be baptized?
S. To attest that they are heirs of the blessing promised to the seed of believers, and enable them to receive and produce the fruit of their Baptism, on acknowledging its reality after they have grown up.
Tony Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-10 14:33:42'They promote the idea of baptismal regeneration', are you sure about that? I have read and listened to a lot of FV 'stuff', not about FV, but from the FVisioners themselves, and there is nothing of baptismal regeneration. As a former, now saved baptist, I do understand that covenant baptism smacks of baptismal regeneration, but 'it just ain't so.'
Disappointed Listener Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-10 16:15:35Which FV proponent said this?
"“Therefore, there is no doubt that all godly people throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ’s blood.”
Or this?
“But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once and for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins.”
These quotations are included in our presbytery examination for ordination in the PCA. We ask ordinands to identify the person or persons who might have written something like this. The vast majority of men think this is some Roman Catholic or Lutheran theologian. Some have recently thought it might be some Federal Vision guy. Nope.
Oh, I'm sorry, but that was John Calvin (Institutes 4.15.3-4).
thinking Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-10 17:01:56For many years, about 9, I have been reading and listening to the men who advocate for the "Federal Vision". Some, I have literally read every book and article. Some I have been listening to their online sermons for several years. I have never heard or read anything that remotely resembles what Dr. Waters alleged on your program that they believe and articulate. In fact, these men have much to say that directly contradicts the way in which he has presented their views. I would urge listeners to very carefully read what these men (Federal Vision) have to say. It is widely available, for free, online; just use “Federal Vision” as your search term.
Terrible Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-11 04:11:18Horrible interview. It was a gross misrepresentation of the FV position. I simply am blown away at the out and out confusion that a "scholar" of theology offered on the interview.
Directory for Publick Worship Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-11 04:36:08Dr Waters must be ignorant of the Direcgory for Publick Worship which states:
He is also to admonish all that are present,
"To look back to their baptism; to repent of their sins against their covenant with God; to stir up their faith; to improve and make right use of their baptism, and of the covenant sealed thereby betwixt God and their souls."
WLC 167 Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-11 04:37:48WLC 167 states:
Question 167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.
Confused Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-11 04:51:18The first caller on this program was obviously clueless and the hosts certainly did not help the matter at all. The FV issues does not state anywhere that one is SAVED by baptism! Get a clue people!
This caller is simply repeating what most ignorant people of the FV system think it says. It doesn't say that...
Give me a break -- this was horrible!
Waters Under a Bridge Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-12 06:54:19This was truly sad, but expected. The same old lies and false assumptions just keep going around without opposition. These guys (Waters, etc.) have created their own heretic group, espoused teaching to them, and have added names to it to make it appear real.
Funny, I personally asked two of the four FV guys if they have ever been contacted for any kind of discussion by these anti_FV "scholars" to confirm what was being said or anything, and of course was not surprised that both said they had never been contacted for any kind of clarification discussion.
Yet this silliness continues to be spread by the ignorant masses who listen to trash like this interview and start further spreading the stupidity further.
Men like Waters and his cohorts have left the Reformed faith and should be called on the carpet for their errors.
thank you Dr. Waters Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-13 10:30:43Au contraire to the comments thus far, as one who has been involved in many of these discussions from the beginning, at times face to face with some of the main FV advocates, other times by email and blog, I found Dr. Waters summarization of the FV positions to be accurate and clear. (With some overstatements -- such as "assurance is simply not to be heard from a FV pulpit" -- or words to that effect -- that is not really fair to what they are trying to do.)
But in general, he did a good job of connecting the dots. The problem is that some in the FV camp do not want to own up to some of what their more radical members are saying.
Thank you, Dr. Waters and Calling for truth for making this interview available.
A Creed -- To Believe or not to Believe? Written by 'Guest' on 2007-02-19 07:10:12†Profession of Faith – from Colossians 1:12-23
We believe that: God our Father has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him.
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
And we, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present us holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed we continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that we heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven. Amen.
What do you think: 1) Is this a valid statement of Faith for the church, or is it Presumptuous? 2) Does this statement Promote true Assurance of Salvation or does it Undermine Assurance or does it give False Assurance?
Andrew Voelkel Asst. Pastor of South Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register.
