In reply to:[color:"blue"]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.
Dear Friends,
I believe there is a necessary inference that must be drawn from the notion that a baptized person might not attain to “final salvation”. When the Auburnites speak in this way of “final salvation” they are clearly speaking in terms of the invisible church. This is indubitable. Mustn’t, therefore, we take the first phrase, which speaks of being joined in baptism to Christ’s body, in the same way? May we properly infer that in midstream the Auburnites go from talking about water baptism and the visible church to “final salvation” and the invisible church? I should say not. The force of the statement demands the interpretation that the one who did not attain to “final salvation” (in the invisible church) was indeed a partaker of “initial salvation”, being "joined to Christ’s body" (also, in the invisible church). In sum, I believe the immediate inference is that we are initially saved at baptism ipso facto, or should I say ex opere operato, and can lose that salvation if faith and repentance are not exercised. To exonerate the statement of being heretical is to assume that the writers equivocated over terms and meant something they didn’t say.
As a bonus, I do not think these Auburn gentlemen can even utter the words “visible church” without having an allergic reaction. They seem to loathe any form of systematic theology, which seems to be the spirit of the age. Having said all that, I would like to believe that the Auburnites are not heretics (like their writings would suggest), but rather a bunch of misguided, self-appointed prophets who have little or no respect for the historic Christian faith at large and the Reformed tradition in particular. These men seem to delight in rugged individualism, the idea of original thought and even theological ambiguities and confusion. That is the best light I can see them in. Otherwise, I would not only have to consider their writings heretical, but them too.
