In reply to:
[color:"blue"] I still maintain that there is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Doug Wilson, Barach, Watkins and Schlissel are guilty of embracing and promoting gross heresy from the "Auburn Avenue Statement" itself.



I respectfully disagree in the area of Justification, which was the context of my original post. If you want to address the possibility of heretical teaching in any respect whatsoever, then I'd be willing to listen to the arguments for that with a clearly stipulated definition of heresy and a particular charge. But concerning the charge of distorting the doctrine of Sola Fide I cannot agree.

I would sum up all the attempts to demonstrate such a charge as ignoring (or not believing) the straightforward remarks about Justification given by Wilson, and then reading back into his definition of Justification things that are said about the covenant. To make things more complicated, hasty conclusions are then drawn from statements made by the Auburn men as they use familiar terms with newly stipulated meanings. We can criticize them for going this route, but we at least ought to deal with these newly stipulated terms when attempting to examine their paradigm internally. Let me explain what I mean with a snippet from one of the articles you gave:

Lest we make the mistake of thinking that a merely formal, or outward connection to Christ is intended by these words, note the use of the term, "continue". To be eternally saved, we are told, all one must do is to "continue to abide in Him". So it must be talking about a vital, mystical union such as the Reformed teach only true believers have. This being so, the document must be seen to teach the falling away of some who were at one time "abiding in Him" -- in the fullest sense in union with Christ, just as Arminianism does.

This is Mr. King's response to the Auburn statement, "Salvation depends upon being united to Christ. Clearly, those who are eternally saved are those who continue to abide in Him by the grace of God." His argument is one massive non sequitur. To say that one must continue to abide in Christ necessarily implies vital union simply shows me that Mr. King is unwilling to think outside the terminology of his own paradigm. Wilson and others would call every baptized member covenantally united to Christ, not vitally united to Christ. For instance...

Wilson writes the following in connection with WCF 10:4, "But note that, according to the Westminster theologians, a man could be called by the ministry of the Word and yet not be saved. He could possess some common operations of the Spirit [Jason1646 comment: For instance, the fatness of the olive tree in Romans 11] and yet ultimately be lost. This is the kind of man that has created our controversy: he is a covenant member, called by the Word, touched by the Holy Spirit, and yet he is lost." Hence, he conceives of a union with Christ that is covenantal (formal) and non-salvific, and yet that person does receive some common operations of the Spirit. He sees John 15 and Romans 11 as people who are true covenant members and hence united to the body of Christ, but not saved. The syllogism is rather simple then; to be baptized as a covenant member is to be united with God's people and since God's people are the body of Christ, a covenant member is united to Christ (covenantally). Those whom God effectually calls and regenerates will abide in Him, while unregenerate hypocrites will be broken off either in this life or at that judgment. Only those who are vitally united to Christ will remain covenantally united to Christ eternally. But once again, since Mr. King and many other Auburn critics equate union with Christ as necessarily appropriating justification, effectual calling, etc., they will interpret this as losing one's justification or salvation. This is simply not the case, since covenantal union with Christ is not equivalent to justification and eternal salvation in the Auburn paradigm. Is this emphasis upon a covenantal union with Christ a good thing? Well, I think that is an important matter for the church to debate. At the very least, as we have seen, given the current understanding of what it means to be united to Christ, one must be very clear when introducing a new angle on it. This has been a valid reproach upon the Auburn conferences, and on some men it is more true than others. For instance, Schlissel outright refuses to speak the language of "the old paradigm" in the Greenville conference saying "he won't go back there". He has essentially decided to give the church the raspberry instead of making an effort to patch things up. Well, that's hardly helpful to the cause and an ungodly response IMHO. Wilson on the other hand at least made sincere efforts to clarify a number of misunderstandings at that conference, and I believe succeeded in accurately describing the locus of the controversy.

My only point in bringing this up is this: All the while attention is diverted to accusations of Wilson and others denying Sola Fide the real debate is being missed. I think there are plenty of places to engage in a debate over the content and the manner in which the Auburn paradigm was presented. But what's just as troubling to me is the sloppy and undiscerning twaddle that came from critics such as John Robbins and the RPCUS. I don't know whether they lacked the patience or had an axe to grind, but some of their charges were way out in left field.

I stand by my assessment that Wilson has not distorted the doctrine of Sola Fide. In order to arrive at this conclusion one must refuse to permit the new terminology of their paradigm and then proceed to falsely apply their comments without acknowledging the new terminology. For instance, imagine that I taught all true believers have been sanctified once and for all. If someone did not permit me to speak of sanctification in any sense other than the confessional concept of progressive sanctification, then they would construe my remarks as teaching Weslyian perfectionism. However, if I am allowed to use biblical terminology and stipulate a different meaning for sanctification, such as a definitive sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), the charge would be seen as erroneous and hasty in its conclusion. That is a simple example of what I believe is happening when Wilson is charged with distorting the teaching of Sola Fide.

So instead of going the long way in determining what Wilson thinks about Justification, I would recommend reading:

A Short Credo on Justification

Reformed is Not Enough

Who better to tell us what he thinks than the man himself?

I believe that Jesus Christ was justified by God in His resurrection from the dead, being declared with power to be the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). He was justified in the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16), vindicated by God, and exalted to the right hand of God the Father. This justification, along with Christ's active and passive obedience, and all His other perfections, is imputed to His people, and is the only basis for all that they have in Him. This justification of Christ, this resurrection from the dead, was for our justification (Rom. 4:25).

I believe that God in His sovereign and secret decree has elected by name a countless number to eternal salvation (Eph. 1:11). Each of these elect are justified individually, and irreversibly, at the point of their conversion, when God imputes to them all the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29-30). The ground of this justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, and is appropriated by the instrument of faith alone, plus nothing, and even this faith is to be understood as a gift of God, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10). (A Short Credo on Justification by Doug Wilson)

So given statements as clear as this, do you think Wilson is too much of an ignoramus to know that he is actually denying Sola Fide or that he is claiming to believe it whilst knowingly denying it, yet not coming out and saying it so as to "look" orthodox? I really don't understand the failure to give these men just a little credibility.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason