Auburn Avenue

Here are a few thoughts on the Auburn Avenue controversy, snipped from an intervention I made on a discussion list. The specific issue in question is Steve Wilkins’s claim that all who are baptized receive “every spiritual blessing in Christ.”

First, an exegetical point: Who is Paul addressing when he uses the phrase “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ”? Is he addressing the church at Ephesus, or the elect within the church at Ephesus? It seems to me that the former is correct. If so, then we have to wrestle with that Scriptural datum, and there must be some sense in addressing the CHURCH, which includes both sheep and goats, as those who have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Trying to make sense of that kind of Scriptural language is what the Auburn Avenue debate has been about. Pastorally, the debate has been about whether or not we can, without any qualms, address the congregations where we minister as the Bible addresses the congregations of the church.

If you believe he’s addressing the elect within the church, I ask: What’s the exegetical basis for that?

Second, some theological issues that intersect with that exegetical point: I agree with Doug Wilson about the importance of paradigmatic issues in the debate. I addressed a couple of these in my paper for the Knox Seminary colloquium (the collection is now available in book form from Knox Seminary Press, edited by Cal Beisner), by highlighting the personal dimension of soteriology and sacramental theology. I sense the same thing going on in many of the discussions of Auburn Avenue: The question has been framed “Does the non-elect church member have the same packet of blessings that the elect have?” I think it’s more usefully framed as “Is the non-elect church member brought into union with Christ through the Spirit, and is the relationship the same as that of the elect church member?”

Putting it in that context immediately provides two helpful directions for consideration: First, the relationships that individuals have with Christ through the Spirit have all the variety of all personal relations, a variety and richness that cannot be reduced to a list of blessings or absence of blessings. Second, relationships take place in and over time. The question, “Do the non-elect have a personal relationship with Christ in the Spirit, and is that relationship the same as the relationship of the elect?” needs to be answered with a question in turn: “When are you talking about?”

I’m sure there are non-elect people who have, at certain periods of life, experienced the power of the Spirit far more deeply than I ever have (Saul comes to mind, and perhaps the apostates of Hebrews 6; and I’m assuming that Saul was ultimately damned, which I realize is debatable). If you sliced into Saul’s life just after the Spirit fell on him, you’d say that this guy’s experience was far BETTER than most elect people. Slice it later, when Saul travels to Endor, and things look very different.

But the issue is not a slice of time here or there, but the WHOLE story of the life. Saul’s life is a story of reception of the Spirit, becoming a “new man” with a “changed heart” (1 Sam 10:6, 9), disobedience and resistance to correction, grieving of the Spirit, departure of the Spirit, apostasy and final doom. Is THAT experience the same as the experience of an elect person, say, David: Obviously not. David’s story is a story of (among other things) enthronement, grievous sin, RECEIVING correction, repentance, renewal and restored kingdom, ultimate salvation. It’s essential in discussing these things that we keep the temporal dimension in mind. This raises other issues about the relation of systematics and biblical theology, or the shape that systematic theology should take.

This, of course, raises a question about assurance, and this is the pastoral issue that many of the opponents of Auburn Avenue have rightly focused on. But I believe a case can be made that the Auburn Avenue theology actually strengthens assurance, though it gives it a shape that is unusual in some Reformed circles. This is where, pastorally, the soteriological and sacramental come together. Assurance comes from the promise of God, rather than from any assessment of the strength of my own faith or performance. That promise comes to us in the Word preached and read, which includes a public absolution of sins, through the sacraments, in the encouragement of other believers.

How can I be assured that I am saved? The answer is simply “Trust the promises.” If the question then is, But how can I be assured that I am truly trusting, the answer has to be “Trust the promises. Trust the One who promises. God have committed Himself to saving His people, going to the extreme of giving His only Son in our place. He is trustworthy. Trust Him.” Or even, “Unbelief is sin. Repent, and trust God who has given Himself for you in Christ.” There is a place for “knowing that we know,” in the words of 1 John, but this has to be set in the context of the exhortation to trust. If the question is, How can I know that I shall trust Him to the end and so be saved, the answer is, “God will keep His own. Trust Him.”