John Hendryx of Monergism.com contacted me today. It appears that someone has illegitimately associated me with Auburn Avenue, so John asked me to clarify my stance toward the movement. We agreed that I should make a public statement, and he has granted me permission to revise our correspondence for this purpose.

Hendryx:

Vincent:

When you have a moment, I would be interested to know what you think of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology. You don't have to go into great detail, but I am curious because some people have pointed out to me that several folks in that movement are interested in your theological views. I am wondering why this is.

John

Cheung:

"When you have a moment I would be interested to know what you think of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology."

I think that it is heretical.

I am with John Robbins on this when he says that they are "Not Reformed At All."

I affirm that we are justified from beginning to end by a sovereign act of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to our account, through (God producing and sustaining our) faith in the gospel.

I also think that their view of the covenant is unbiblical, that is, if you can understand their often ambiguous and confusing explanations at all.

I am curious because some people have pointed out to me that several folks in that movement are interested in your theological views. I am wondering why this is.

I have no idea. I have no contact with any of them, and until now I was unaware that any of them even know about me.

What exactly have you heard?

Hendryx:

Vincent:

I am glad to hear it and I figured as much.

Some guy wrote to me and said that there are devotees to FV on the Puritan board who also promoted your views at the same time, and he was speculating that there were good reasons for the connection. I also know a guy who used to go to my church who is a fervent devotee to Douglas Wilson. He also used to read you frequently but I did not make any FV connection at the time.

I wrote you just to make sure. Perhaps you should clarify at some point what you think.

Blessings,
John

Cheung:

Yes, I will probably make a brief statement about it on my blog this week.

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention, because I had no idea.

Perhaps those individuals were interested in some of the things that I say that are not directly related to justification, covenant, etc., or perhaps they misunderstood some of the things that I say as being consistent with them.

I don't know. I will tell you if I ever find out, and please tell me if you do.

Thanks.

Maybe a few people have wrongly inferred that my theology might be supportive of or consistent with FV/AA because some of those who adhere to the distinctives of FV/AA at the same time like what I teach on apologetics, or on some theological topics other than justification and covenant.

So let me make this clear: I REJECT and OPPOSE the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology, such as that espoused by Douglas Wilson.

Again, thanks to John Hendryx for bringing this to my attention, and for directly requesting my confirmation.

Recommended:

O. Palmer Robertson, The Current Justification Controversy

John W. Robbins, A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy

John W. Robbins, "The Justification Controversy: A Guide to the Perplexed"

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians

Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians

Posted in Theology, Current | Permanent Link