In reference to:<br>"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:"<br><br>This is a major problem, using familar terms with new meanings. First, it breeds confusion as the flocj tries to communicate and cannot. Some of these who are following after the Auburnites cling to these new deinitions as if they were always so. Second, it is exactly what cults do. Cults distort the famolar terms in order to introduce heretical teachings. The familar terms mislead since they have new definitions. Thirdly, what is the purpose of changing definitions, if one is not changing a doctrine. <br><br>But it seems to me that because they wanted to change the doctrine, they were forced to change basic defintions in order to support that doctrine.<br><br>The whole purpose it seems to me, is to undercut the New Covenant by changing what it is into what the OC was. From a covenant that is unbreakable and that has overcome the problem of the old [that the people were unfaithful] to one that is breakable and fails to overcome the unfaithfulness of the covenant people. But who among us is without sin [unfaithful]? To start down that path makes salvation dependent on works and not on grace. <br><br>
