.jpg)
The PCA Is Back In Monroe, LA
My friend Rev. Brad Irick just started services at a new church plant on Monroe, LA called Providence Presbyterian Church. A fitting name given God's providence in the former Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (tied heavily with the Federal Vision) having left the PCA for the CRE in Monroe. Now God has, in His great providence, raised up a church to take the place those who left due to their false teachings. Please pray for Brad and this new church as they enter a place where clearly the devil has been working. If you know of anyone looking for a church in Monroe or its surrounding areas, point them to Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA).
12 comments:
You clearly need to repent of this false teaching.
I see no reason why I would need to repent concerning anything in this post. What false teaching are you referring to?
"Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church [...] those who left due to their false teachings [...] a place where clearly the devil has been working."
If there is preaching that the sacraments justify (not final because we aren't RC) than that is heresy. If there is a denial of the active obedience of Christ imputed to those who believe that is heresy.
That exists in the preaching/theology of the elders of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Are you referring first/foremost to Steve Wilkins? Can you point to an example regarding justification? Is it in his '07 joint FV Statement?
http://www.federal-vision.com/resources/joint_FV_Statement.pdf
Which verse(s) teach(es) that we must affirm the active obedience of Christ imputed to us?
I am referring to exactly what I said, the group referred to as “Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church” of Monroe, LA. The reaction of this group, represented by its elders, to their presbytery and the General Assembly on the points of justification/sacraments.
Scripture for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (although the Westminster Confession is clear on this):
There is a clear distinction between the passive obedience of Christ in Romans 3 and 5, and the active obedience of Christ in Romans 5.
Romans 3, “25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God…” and Romans 5, “9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”
Romans 5, “10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
So there was/is a group of unnamed individuals in that church--and all their unnamed elders--that you think was guilty of "false teaching" and "heresy" "on points of justification/sacraments" and this is because of their "reaction [...] to their presbytery and the General Assembly"? What PCA ruling stated "false teaching" and "heresy"?
The verses cited state "we shall be saved by his life" and that "by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous." Where's the imputation of active obedience as justification? How do you know this "obedience" isn't the passive giving of his life, that "saved by his life" isn't post-resurrection life, and that "we shall be saved" isn't sanctification? Then how do you teach that those who don't affirm the "imputation of Christ's active obedience" are false teachers/heretics?
Philippians 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Denying the imputation of Christ's righteousness (active) and more clearly believing that one is in union with Christ based on baptism and has at least some benefits of salvation in Christ is proclaiming another Gospel.
See Galatians 1:8-9 again. It matters not what the PCA did not say. God says it.
Nick,
It is interesting that you are Roman Catholic are showing up here on a conversation that Frank has concerned himself with dealing with the FV. Maybe there is a major connection between RC and FV...
Anyway,
I believe Wes White has actually answered a number of the questions and statements you pose here. Really then there is no need for me to respond since he has already answered you.
Nick - your narrow definition of logizomai (based on a very simplistic treatment in the lexicon you cite) simply does not do justice to the Biblical data.
For example, your view that logizomai refers to the actual, objective status of something would contradict the way the word is used in the following passages:
Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
Was Christ actually, objectively a transgressor? Or was he "numbered" or "considered" or "reckoned" a transgressor because of the sins which were imputed to Him?
Numbers 18:27 And your contribution shall be counted to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress.
The Septuagint version of this passage uses the same word. Is the contribution of the Levites actually, objectively the grain of the threshing floor?
Romans 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Is the uncircumcised man actually, objectively circumcised? Or is he "regarded" or "considered" circumcised because of his obedience?
In another case, you say "So if Abraham's faith is "logizomai as righteousness," it must be an actually righteous act of faith…" But the passage you cite directly contradicts your argument:
Romans 4:5–8 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Notice first that Paul describes the man as "ungodly." Your view would have God justifying the godly, not the ungodly, since you consider this faith a "righteous act." Secondly, note that David describes this "logizomai" / "reckoning" of faith as being "apart from works." That directly contradicts your view that this "logizomai" is based on a "righteous act [work] of faith." Thirdly, note that in the last case, the Lord is "not counting" / "not reckoning" the man's sin against him. But it is still "his sin!" He is not actually, objectively sinless. That is explicitly denied by this citation of Psalm 32.
Romans 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Is the food actually, objectively unclean, or is it merely considered unclean by the person?
2 Corinthians 5:18–19 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
God was not "counting" / "reckoning" their sins against them. Were these people actually, objectively sinless? Notice that the sins are still described as "their trespasses." Is God lying? Or does He not reckon / count / logizomai their sins against them because He is reckoning / counting / crediting them to Jesus Christ? The next two verses give us our answer:
2 Corinthians 5:20–21 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Christ knew no sin, and yet was accounted sinful. He was "made sin." Our sins were imputed to Him (unless you are willing to argue that Christ was made "inherently" sinful). In the same way, we become the righteousness of God in Christ. To argue that this righteousness is inherent and not imputed destroys the parallelism of this verse.
This "alien," imputed righteousness is illustrated by the putting off of the filthy "clothes" of sinful flesh and being dressed in the pure clothes of Jesus' righteousness like a robe (a covering for our sin and guilt and shame – which Paul references in Romans 4:7).
Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Zechariah 3:1–5 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?" Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments." And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by.
I would encourage you to use a lexicon with a more comprehensive treatment if you have access to one. For example, if you would have referenced Bauer-Danker (BDAG), you would see that "logizomai" is "primarily a mathematical and accounting term, then of cognitive processes." The word was commonly used in a commercial sense referring to an accounting credit or debit. (See Numbers 18:27 in the Septuagint). We use often use the term "credit" in the same way today. Though it can, and often does, refer to a careful consideration and evaluation, it has other uses as well, some of which you can see in the verses above. This is confirmed by other lexical sources as well: Liddell & Scott, Louw-Nida, EDNT, DBL, Kittel-Bromiley (TDNT), etc. Its meaning cannot be limited to the one you have given, as I have hopefully demonstrated.
Grace to you,
Jerry
Andrew, I have talked with Wes before, though I don't remember if this specific issue was addressed in full detail.
Jerry,
I'm glad you're willing to have a deeper look at this issue. I grant that I only presented a few passages, but that was for the sake of brevity and not to try and hide anything. In my study of every occurrence of the term in Scripture, I don't consider my take on this 'narrow'.
I invite you to consider the raw data and my conclusion:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARTR-epWNcFHZGR0ZDc5djRfMTFkcWg2cGZmcw&hl=en
To address some of what you wrote:
(1) You listed Luke 22:37, where Jesus was 'reckoned among the transgressors'. I deny Jesus was a transgressor due to either his sins or our 'imputed' to Him (which the Bible never speaks of). Rather, the people performing that 'reckoning' are doing so incorrectly; the mobs were in grave error to reckon Jesus as a transgressor. Consider some similar examples: Rom 2:3, the hypocrite (falsely) 'reckons' that he won't get punished for committing the same sins; Romans 8:36, persecutors (falsely) 'reckon' Christians as sheep to be slaughtered; 2 Cor 10:2, some sinful Corinthians (falsely) 'reckon' that Paul lives according to the flesh rather than the Spirit.
In all these examples (and others), it's clear that the person doing the 'reckoning' is committing grave sin or error by not 'reckoning' something as it is supposed to be.
As for Numbers 18:27 and Romans 2:26, those are truly a tiny minority of references, but there's an even more important detail here as well. The lexicon rightly notes that "reckon" can be used when assigning equality or equivalency to something, which is what is being done in these two cases. This is very different from saying something is reckoned the exact opposite of what it really is in the sense of counting an unrighteous person to be righteous. And, further, the interpretation of "faith credited as righteousness" is understood to mean "faith *transfers* righteousness," which is *never* how "reckon" is used in Scripture or lexicon.
With these important clarifications in mind, I think you can now take a fresh examination of Romans 4. Also, as I originally noted, Romans 4:4 uses "reckon" precisely in the manner I originally explained, indicating I'm also relying on immediate context.
Post a Comment