The Gospel of Auburn: A Critique of the Federal

Vision, which is also known as Auburn Theology

Robbie Schmidtberger
Submitted as a final paper for Religion 480: Covenant Theology
Spring 2007
 Reformed
Theology
finally
reached
a
midlife
crisis.

In
the
past
decades
of

2
existence
warped
conceptions
of
assurance,
covenant
theology,
and
the
sacraments,

took
center
stage.

One
such
theological
system
that
in
part
caused
this
debate
is
a

school
of
thought
known
as
Auburn
theology,
or
more
popularly,
the
Federal
Vision.


Auburn
theologians
wanted
to
objectify
Christian
assurance.

For
the
most
part

evangelicalism
of
the
20th
century
succumbed
to
the
relativism
and
subjectivism
of

postmodernity.

Federal
visionists
found
their
remedy
in
the
sacrament
of
baptism
and

the
covenant
of
grace.

Their
general
proposition
is
that
baptism
is
the
mark
of
the

covenant,
thus
baptism
is
also
the
objective
mark
of
salvation.

By
proclaiming
this

message
the
Auburn
school
placed
assurance
where
it
should
not
be.

The

misunderstandings
of
Auburn
theology
are
all
intricately
connected
together
in
a
web

with
a
skewed
view
of
the
covenants
at
her
center.

Auburn
theology
skewed
the
traditional
understanding
of
covenant
theology.


Reformed
tradition
taught
that
covenant
theology
is
a
theological
system
in
which
one

understands
how
the
covenants
of
the
Old
and
New
Testaments
fit
together.

These

covenants
include
the
Adamic,
Noahic,
Abrahamic,
Mosaic,
Davidic,
and
finally
the
New

Covenant.

In
the
Old
Testament
there
is
a
unifying
old
covenant
of
grace,
which
had

differing
administrations
with
each
covenant.

The
theme
and
message
were
essentially

the
same,
“I
will
be
your
God
and
you
will
be
my
people,”
except
for
the
Adamic

Covenant.1

Auburn
theologians
did
not
see
this.

On
the
contrary
they
saw
only
one
massive

covenant
of
grace
running
though
both
testaments,
including
the
Adamic

administration.

Mono
covenantalism
failed
to
recognize
the
differences
between
the

covenants.
But
the
covenants
are
not
all
the
same,
to
suggest
otherwise
leads
to
a

bushel
of
problems.

One
such
problem
of
the
Federal
Vision
is
the
replacement
of
the

imputation
of
the
obedience
of
Christ
with
our
own
personal
obedience
since
the

covenant
of
works
is
rejected.2

Auburn
theologians
drastically
confuse
this.


1

O.
Palmer
Robertson,
The
Christ
of
the
Covenants,
(Phillipsburg,
Presbyterian
and
Reformed),
51.


2

T.
David
Gordon,
Reflections
on
Auburn
Theology,
ed.
Guy
P.
Watters,
(Wheaton,
Crossway),
122.


 Auburn
theologians
leaned
towards
abandoning
the
imputation
of
Christ.

By

3
their
assumption
of
the
pre‐fall
era
was
a
covenant
of
grace,
not
a
covenant
of
works,

they
suggested
that
Adam
was
premature
when
he
ate
the
fruit.

This
idea
is
unbiblical.


Auburn
gained
proof
from
their
own
parable,
concluding
that,
“character
merit
is
far

more
than
a
summation
of
individual
merits.

It
is
not
actually
merit
at
all,
but
character

development…
It
is
a
deepening
of
the
consciousness
and
a
development
of
wider

awareness.3”

Jordan
went
on
to
say
that
the
notion
of
Christ’s
merit
is
foreign
to
the

Old
Testament
and
the
New.4

Yet,
Saint
Paul
says
something
rather
different,

And
the
free
gift
is
not
like
the
result
of
that
one
man's
sin.
For
the

judgment
following
one
trespass
brought
condemnation,
but
the
free
gift

following
many
trespasses
brought
justification.


If,
because
of
one
man's

trespass,
death
reigned
through
that
one
man,
much
more
will
those
who

receive
the
abundance
of
grace
and
the
free
gift
of
righteousness
reign
in

life
through
the
one
man
Jesus
Christ.5



Paul
offers
the
truth
that
Adam
sinned,
which
brought
judgment
and

condemnation,
not
maturity.


Paul
also
teaches
that
Jesus
Christ
brought
justification,

which
an
abundance
of
grace
and
the
free
gift
of
righteousness
of
life
both
precede

from
Him.

Naturally,
one
asks
how
one
gets
such
a
gift.

Jordan
pointed
out
that
Adam

ate
the
fruit
before
he
was
ready,
before
God
allowed
him
to
do
so.

Adam’s
sin
was
not

the
fact
that
he
was
immature;
it
was
his
lack
of
trust
in
God
and
questioning
his

authority,
which
led
to
a
direct
violation
of
God’s
command.

Any
claim
otherwise
is
a

serious
misunderstanding
of
the
Adamic
administration,
or
the
covenant
of
works.

The
federal
vision
confused
the
doctrine
of
paedobaptism,
in
the
teaching
that

baptism
was
the
objective
mark
of
the
covenant.

Plus
Auburn
went
further
and
taught

that
those
who
are
baptized
are
the
elect.

Rich
Lusk
departed
from
traditional
reformed

theology
and
accepted
a
Roman
idea
when
he
said,
“For
Kuyper
[classic
reformed

thought],
some
children
receive
the
outward
sign
of
baptism,
while
others
received
the

outward
sign
and
the
inner
reality.

But
to
split
the
sacrament
in
two
this
way
is
deeply


3

James
B.
Jordon,
Merit
vs.
Maturity:
What
did
Jesus
do
for
Us,
ed.
Steve
Wilkins,
(Monroe,
Athanasius),

157.


4

Ibid.
pg.
192.



5

Romans
5:16,
17
all
Scripture
quotations
are
from
the
English
Standard
Version.



problematic
both
philosophically
and
biblically.6”

As
classic
Roman
Catholic
theology

4
proclaimed,
all
who
are
outside
the
church
are
outside
the
covenant
and
the
means
of

grace.

Lusk
suggested
that
those
who
are
baptized
receive
an
inward
and
outward

washing
of
their
sins.

But
in
the
Old
Testament
the
idea
that
one
is
circumcised

outwardly
and
internally
by
the
act
of
circumcision,
is
not
there.

Federal
Vision’s
trademark
card
is
the
assurance
one
gains
from
the
efficacy
of

baptism.
Their
stance
and
understanding
of
the
effects
of
baptism
is
upon
the

administration
of
the
sacrament
one
enters
into
the
single
covenant
of
grace
through

tangible
means.

But,
baptism
did
not
and
does
not
bring
anyone
to
salvation.

Yet
it
is
a

call
to
grow
in
Christ.

When
of
age
a
person
can
look
back
and
see
that
God
called
them

to
grow
in
His
ways.

Baptism
is
reminder
that
they
did
nothing
in
their
salvation,
instead

it
was
the
parents
who
held,
the
pastor
poured
and
they
squirmed.

By
suggesting
that

assurance
comes
from
faithfulness
to
the
word
of
God,
and
participation
in
the
visible

covenant
community,
Auburn
theology
strips
salvation
by
faith
alone.

And
it
replaces
it

with
the
Roman
idea
of
a
syncretistic
salvation,
by
their
faithfulness,
not
faith
in
Christ.

In
a
sense
the
Federal
Vision
denied
total
depravity
due
to
their
syncretistic

salvation.

If
one’s
heart
was
inclined
to
apostatize,
then
one’s
heart
would
stray
from

God.

To
say
that
any
action
or
deed
(i.e.
baptism)
performed
by
any
man
saves
them,

fails
to
take
into
consideration
the
work
of
Christ.

Scripture
blatantly
rejects
any

teaching
that
suggests
that
the
sacraments
can
save
someone,
and
the
same
is
true
of

salvation
by
faithfulness.

In
the
Old
Testament
Israel
circumcised
all
her
members,
but
not
every
Israelite

was
a
son
of
God.

Take
for
example
the
case
of
Jacob
and
Esau.

They
were
both
under

the
covenant
of
promise,
and
were
circumcised.

But
it
is
written,
“Jacob,
I
loved,
but

Esau
I
hated.7”

The
prophetical
book
of
Malachi
addresses
this
question
of
who
is
in
the

covenant
and
who
is
outside
the
covenant.

John
Barach
agreed
with
this
as
well,
but

took
it
in
a
different
direction.

He
applied
it
to
the
covenant
community,
the
church.



6

Rich
Lusk,
Paedobaptism
and
Baptismal
Efficacy:
Historic
Trends
and
Current
Controversies,
ed.
Steve

Wilkins,
(Monroe,
Athanasius),
102.


7

Romans
9:13

God
"chose
them
to
belong
to
Him,
but
their
life
in
covenant
with
god
was
conditional.


5
8
It
involved
faith
and
obedience
and
perseverance. ”

This
is
a
hint
at
the
Federal
Vision’s

misunderstanding
of
covenant
theology
as
certain
elements
of
the
Mosaic
model

continue
to
the
new.

Certain
Auburn
theologians
claimed
that
the
Mosaic
Covenant

was
the
gospel
in
pre‐Christ
form.

Auburn
recognized
that
Israel
was
the
background

for
the
Church,
but
only
partially.

As
already
hinted
at,
Auburn
theologians
blur
the
distinction
between
the

invisible
and
visible
church.

This
is
classical
reformed
terminology.

Barach
contradicted

this
teaching.

With
the
claim
that
“God’s
covenant
includes
some
who
have
been
so

predestined
to
eternal
glory
with
Christ,
but
it
also
includes
others
who
have
not
been

predestined
to
eternal
glory
with
Christ,
but
who
will
apostatize.9”

It
is
blasphemous
to

suggest
that
everyone
who
is
baptized
enters
into
the
very
covenant
that
always
existed

within
the
Godhead
from
eternity.10

This
assertion
suggested
that
God
had
the
same

intimate
fellowship
that
He
has
with
His
son
with
those
outside
Christ.

Wilkins
defined
a

covenant
as
a
real
relationship,
consisting
of
real
communion
with
the
Triune
God

through
union
with
Christ.11
Auburn
theology
failed
to
catch
the
contradiction
when
the

apostate
fails
to
persevere
in
the
grace
of
God
and,
thus,
has
his
name
removed
from

the
book
of
life.12

Douglas
Wilson,
sought
to
redefine
these
categories,
and
asked
a
question,
“who

talks
about
the
distinction
between
a
visible
and
invisible
mother?13”

Wilson
revealed
a

false
conception
of
this
distinction.

He
misunderstood
that
the
invisible
is
the
true

covenant
community,
and
the
visible
church
is
an
outworking
of
that
community.

They

partially
overlap
each
other.

Murray
noted
that
while
the
‘invisible
church’
never

appears
in
the
New
Testament,
therefore
it
should
not
be
defined
as
such.14

Is
the

trinity
specifically
mentioned
in
scripture,
or
the
language
of
the
Nicene
Creed,
“of
the


8

Rich
Lusk,
Covenant
and
Election,
ed.
Steve
Wilkins,
(Monroe,
Athanasius),
102.

9

John
Barach,
Covenant
and
Election,
ed.
Steve
Wilkins,
(Athanasius,
Monroe),
32.


10

Steve
Wilkins,
Covenant,
Baptism
and
Salvation,
(Athanasius,
Monroe),
51.


11

Ibid.,
pg.
58.


12

Ibid.
pg.
61.



13

Douglas
Wilson,
The
Church:
Visible
or
Invisible?
ed.
Steve
Wilkins,
(Athanasius,
Monroe),
264.



14

Ibid.
pg.
266.


same
substance?”

Certainly
not,
at
times
it
is
appropriate
to
develop
categories
and

6
terminology
to
assist
in
teaching
such
concepts.

Further
adding
to
the
confusion
is
Schlissel’s
essay
on
justification
and
the

gentile
nations.

His
sympathy
with
the
New
Perspective
on
Paul
asserted
that
the

reformed
view
misunderstood
Paul’s
plight
in
Galatia.

He
suggests
that
it
was
not

legalism,
but
nationalism
that
Paul
was
fighting.

Therefore,
reformed
theology’s

solution
of
justification
by
faith
alone
is
wrong.

Justification
according
to
him
is
more
of

being
in
the
right
group
than
being
legally
righteous
before
God.

Auburn
theology
is
guilty
of
misunderstanding
sacramental
theology,

ecclesiology,
covenant
theology
and
the
doctrine
of
assurance
as
a
consequence.

These

men
and
their
teachings
must
be
listened
to
with
great
discernment.

But
they

admittingly
are
outside
the
camp
of
reformed
tradition.

Wilson
recognized
this
as
he

discussed
the
invisible
church,
as
did
Lusk,
Wilkins
and
Barach
as
they
suggested

alternative
views
of
election.

The
true
covenant
community
is
not
those
who
are

baptized,
but
instead
those
who
are
found
in
Christ.

Saints
of
old
and
new
who
placed

their
undying
trust
and
faith
in
the
God‐Man,
not
in
their
baptism,
but
instead
the

source
of
grace.