Jason,

You can respectfully disagree all you like, but it isn't going to change the fact that the "Auburn Avenue Statement" is contrary to the position of the Reformed Confessions (despite their using quotes from them) and more importantly, the doctrine of salvation taught in holy writ. Let me further preface my remarks by saying that I view these men as holding to a position which could be rightly called, "Reformed Romanism". In short, it uses the subtlety of the Roman apologists but with Protestant terminology. Further, they affirm orthodoxy at a certain place but deny it with their "new terminology" in another place. Here is a good place, perhaps, to answer your last question first:
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]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.

The reason I can't give these men any "credibility" is because what they are teaching is incredibly incredulous. They have made it crystal clear that the church, since the days of the Reformation and even before, have "got it wrong". And the entire purpose of the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference with its "Statement" was to bring the Church back to a "right teaching of Scripture". To them, it is of no little importance that the Church repent of their historic and confessional beliefs and adopt theirs. The issue isn't one of a particular "degree" of change to a mutually agreed doctrine. It is a major shift in thinking in regard to the doctrine of soteriology. Whether Wilson & co. are consciously trying to pervert the grace of God in Christ Jesus, I cannot determine and really it doesn't matter to me one way or another. Is the man too much of an ignoramus. . .? It's not a matter of the man being an "ignoramus" but rather has the man been deceived by something lacking within himself, the Devil, or a combination of both? One who is deceived can sincerely believe the error that is being taught is truth and even sacrifice his life for it. But that doesn't bear on the verity of the teaching. What is true is that the teaching is heretical and that it is being couched in "orthodox" language. Now, on to some examples from the "Auburn Avenue Statement" itself.

7. By baptism one is joined to Christ's body, united to Him covenantally, and given all the blessings and benefits of His work (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:1ff; WSC #94). This does not, however, grant to the baptised final salvation; rather, it obligates him to fulfill the terms of the covenant (embracing these blessings by faith, repenting of sins, and persevering in faithful obedience to God). One can only fulfill the terms of the covenant by faith, not by works. And even this faith is the gift of God, lest anyone should boast.
Notice first of all that they have added a qualification to what the WSC states and from which they quote:
Q94: What is baptism?
A94: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.
Where in this section of the Catechism does the word/qualifier "covenantally" appear? It doesn't. The Catechism speaks of the blessings of the Covenant of Grace being applied and sealed. The Auburn 4 have inserted their fabricated "covenantalism" into the meaning of the text where it was never intended.

Secondly, the WSC and the WCF when speaking of the benefits of Christ applied to someone, have the elect specifically in mind; never a general application of Christ's atoning work. But the Auburn 4 state that ALL the [covenantal] blessings by baptism are received by ALL. How is it that the reprobate receive the atoning benefits of Christ's work, including the sending and indwelling of the Holy Spirit no less than the elect? Is this what the historic Reformed Faith teaches? Calvinism holds firmly and consistently to a Definite Atonement which states that Christ died only for the elect. And only the elect are efficaciously called to Christ. And only do the elect receive the benefits of Christ and are joined to Him, Who by His Spirit preserves them in the faith to the end. The reprobate and unbelieving receive nothing of Christ. What they receive in the way of "blessings" is that which "overflows" from those who are united to Christ by faith and nothing more. Is there no distinction to be made between the elect and the reprobate in the matter of being "joined with and to Christ" and the blessings which flow to them? Is baptism the means by which these blessing flow prior to faith to all who the sacrament is administered? The Auburn 4 seem to think so.

Thirdly, in the confessions of the Reformed churches, justification is a forensic declaration of the imputed righteousness of Christ upon the one who believes [the elect]. And it is upon the acceptance of that profession of faith that adults are allowed admission to the sacrament of baptism. The Auburn 4 have it backwards, for they say, "[color:red]This does not, however, grant to the baptised final salvation; rather, it obligates him to fulfill the terms of the covenant (embracing these blessings by faith, repenting of sins, and persevering in faithful obedience to God)." Further, what kind of salvation IS granted to the baptized individual if it isn't "final"? I would say that NO salvation is "granted" to the one baptized, but as the confessions all say, baptism is a SIGN and SEAL of the covenant of grace, i.e., that salvation in its fullness is owned by those who have come to the sacrament having been united to Christ by a living faith. This is the biblical understanding of Justification... a "once for all right-standing before God based upon the vicarious substitutionary work of Christ and declared by God at the moment of faith." One either IS justified or one IS NOT. One IS saved or one IS NOT. There is no temporal justification which must be maintained.

Fourthly, this "maintaining of one's standing before God" is exactly what Rome and what the Auburn 4 are teaching. And here we meet some of their "double-speak"; "[color:red]it obligates him to fulfill the terms of the covenant (embracing these blessings by faith, repenting of sins, and persevering in faithful obedience to God) . . .". Does the Scripture teach that one must "fulfill the terms of the covenant" to be able to keep his union with Christ and to be able to own all the blessings given from that union? Decidedly, they do NOT. The "covenant" has been completely "fulfilled" by our Substitute, the Lord our Righteousness, our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is no "covenant" made between God and man..... that has past with Adam. Now, our being received by God (justification) is due to Christ fulfilling the terms of the covenant made with Adam as the "second Adam" in our place. Those who are united to Christ, the "covenant keeper" are deemed "covenant keepers" in the true sense of the word and are adopted as sons, never to be cast out. My JUSTIFICATION is never dependent upon my "fulling the terms of a covenant". As believers, we are to walk before the Lord according to His holy and righteous will, as children of God. Doing so is evidence of my justification, not a means to secure its final end. Yes, yes... but the Auburn 4 say that too, i.e., it is all of faith and even that is a gift of God. But the RCC says that too. They say that their "good works" are all of grace and flow from those who have faith. The Auburn 4 are much more subtle in their wording however.... they use Protestant phraseology to hide the heresy, much better than the Catholics. "[color:red]One can only fulfill the terms of the covenant by faith, not by works." Indeed... by faith alone, BUT their previous remark qualifies what this "faith" is, i.e., "[color:red](embracing these blessings by faith, repenting of sins, and persevering in faithful obedience to God). To give their Romish view some palatability, they abstain from using the phrase, "good works", but instead choose to write "faithful obedience to God." What is this "faithful obedience to God other than good works? According to the "Statement" ALL who are baptized must continue in their "faithful obedience" if they are to receive salvation. And Rome [Linked Image] and says, and even that "faithful obedience" is of grace, thus not meriting salvation.

The Reformers saw through the foggy linguistics of Rome and there are some today who also see through this same "smoke and mirror" approach of the Auburnites. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck. . . .!! What more can one say? Well, perhaps this... "You don't have to jump into the sewer to know that it stinks!" [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]