In reply to:[color:"blue"]I would say you were just misled by Satan.
Although it is true that Satan is the great "Deceiver", in such matters it is doubtful that he or any of his minions have to do much deceiving to convince someone that Arminianism is taught in Scripture. The depth of depravity that permeates a man's mind and heart is incomprehensible. Thus semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism is what would naturally attract men. For it caters to the desire of all men to be autonomous to one degree or another and to usurp the right of the Sovereign Creator and Ruler of the universe. Arminianism allocates a certain percentage of sovereignty to God with the greater portion going to oneself. Further, even this "allowance" of God's sovereignty is limited to power and not to His divine authority. Thus, at the end of the day, man determines his own fate through the exercising of his alleged "free-will" and allows God to save him.
In the beginning, God created man in His own image. And every since that day, man has been trying to return the favor.
I hadn't thought of it that way even though I had used the same arguements...if that makes any sense...lol...for whatever reason, I have come to see Arminianism as just a big misunderstanding that needs to be fixed.
In reply to:I have come to see Arminianism as just a big misunderstanding that needs to be fixed.
And I would call that a gigantic euphemism! Buying a Mars bar instead of a Snickers at the store for your wife is a misunderstanding. This "misunderstanding" is of infinite importance, for it leads to everlasting torment if embraced with the heart. So I would say it doesn't need to be "fixed" but eradicated totally! (cf. Gal 1:8, 9; 5:12)
[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] And now the lightbulb clicks on [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img] No wonder I always got a bitter taste in my mouth when I would hear Arminian preachers speak of the garden of Eden where the serpent says, <blockquote>[color:blue]You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God [although I believe Satan was referring to the small g god here], knowing good and evil. </font color=blue>Genesis 3:4-5 (ESV)</blockquote>Is it just me, or did Satan keep his promise??? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/eek.gif" alt="eek" title="eek[/img]
Things haven't changed much since that eventful day. The Serpent still speaks with a "forked tongue"! Remember, it is recorded of the Serpent, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made." (Gen 3:1) and "He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (Jh 8:44) I think it can be rightly said, therefore, that the Devil is a "subtle ". His modus operandi is to intermix truth and error in cleverly couched language so as to convince men of that which is contrary to God's truth. (A good example of this is the current attempt of those following the teachings of Norman Shepherd, e.g., Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Wright, et al, to distort the biblical and historical teaching of Sola Fide)
So, in the Serpent's words: "Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.", there is some truth and lots of error. The most obvious error is the total contradiction of what God had originally told Adam, "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Of course, one could possibly say that even in regard to the Devil's denial of the threat of death was partially true in that physical death was only germinate on that day and didn't actually occur until centuries later. But of course we know that the "death" which God promised would take place should Adam eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was three-fold and not restricted to physical death. Secondly, it is also partially true, in one sense, that their eyes were opened and they were able to determine good and evil. But once again, this is a distortion of truth. Their eyes were "opened" indeed, but in the sense that this was in regard to Adam and Eve's own estimation. They thought they could see, but they were blind. They thought they were able to discern good from evil. But in fact, all they were able to do was to ascertain the lesser of evils and had no comprehension or even desire for that which was good; they were DEAD to all that pertained to God and His holiness, righteousness and goodness.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that what the Serpent said would happen should Eve eat the fruit did NOT come to pass.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]A good example of this is the current attempt of those following the teachings of Norman Shepherd, e.g., Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Wright, et al, to distort the biblical and historical teaching of Sola Fide
Who is this Norman Shepherd fellow? I am aware that NT Wright teaches that "new perspective" stuff [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img], but I didn't know that Wilson and Schlissel were on that same path. Let me know If I misunderstood.
thanks, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
In reply to:[color:"blue"] His modus operandi is to intermix truth and error in cleverly couched language so as to convince men of that which is contrary to God's truth. (A good example of this is the current attempt of those following the teachings of Norman Shepherd, e.g., Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Wright, et al, to distort the biblical and historical teaching of Sola Fide)
Pilgrim, do you know where I could read from Wilson's writings where he distorts the historical teaching on Sola Fide?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]And I would call that a gigantic euphemism! Buying a Mars bar instead of a Snickers at the store for your wife is a misunderstanding. This "misunderstanding" is of infinite importance, for it leads to everlasting torment if embraced with the heart. So I would say it doesn't need to be "fixed" but eradicated totally! (cf. Gal 1:8, 9; 5:12)
Oh No! What am I to do? My wife likes Almond Joy! Or is that acceptable for Reformed Baptists!?!?!? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
Hi Pilgrim,<br><br>Well, that is a statement put out by the session of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, not Doug Wilson. I was referring to him specifically. But since we're on it, I would say that the Auburn session does not distort the teaching of Sola Fide, though it still open to critcism for muddying the waters in other areas, like what it means to be united to Christ, partake of His benefits, etc.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I would say that the Auburn session does not distort the teaching of Sola Fide . . .
Jason, I am deeply sorry to see that you believe that. What more can I say, then I do sincerely pray that the Spirit of God will open your eyes to recognize and reject the serious heresy that is being taught by those who embrace the "Auburn Statement".
I suppose you could begin by showing me where they reject Justificiation by faith alone, which is how I understand Sola Fide. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Hey, I have no problem joining in with you in condemning a serious heresy if it's there, I just have not seen the problems to be in the area of justification by faith alone, though I have had concerns in other areas and even expressed them on this board. The only place in which they address the question of Justification by faith alone is here:
Salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not of works. It is founded upon the obedience, death, and resurrection of the faithful Second Adam, Jesus Christ. Justification is by faith alone. This faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces and virtues (WCF 11.2). Justifying faith, therefore, is never vain but one that works by love (Gal. 5:6).
So what leads you to believe they have rejected Justification by faith alone?
I hope you can appreciate the fact that the heresy being espoused is most serious yet also most subtle so as to lead men astray from the truth. Thus, you are not going to find a simple and direct statement such as, "We deny the doctrine of Sola Fide." Like all heretical teachings, there is an admixture of truth and error or at least the language of orthodoxy is used verbosely but has been redefined without saying as much. A good example of these two methods of presenting heresy are: 1) Roman Catholicism which professes to hold to salvation by grace alone. Yet, when it explains the details of the doctrine it is far different than what the Scriptures and the Reformers taught in regard to Sola Gratia. 2) The exponents of neo-Orthodoxy were "masters" of perverting terms so that when someone initially reads their heretical teachings, they do appear to be speaking the same language as the historic church. But in fact, they are far from it.
Now, in regard to the "Auburnites", Norman Shepherd, & Co., they use a combination of the two methods briefly given above. Thus, for one to discern what they are really teaching, one must carefully read their statements and notice how the terms are redefined throughout. The subtlety is found in their interjecting their statements with acceptable excerpts from the WCF, which clearly has convinced some, if not many, that they are stating that which has always been held by the Church. However, it was said by Wilson (sorry, can't immediately provide the quote), that the Church has erred for centuries, even the Reformation erred, in understanding the doctrine of justification and it is the goal of the "Auburnites" to "bring the Church back to the true biblical teachings, . . . etc." Thus, if these men are espousing the very same doctrine that has always been embraced, then what need is their for them to restate it and to correct it of any errors?
Much of what I have read has been written by those who accept the "Auburn Statement" and who have tried to expound on it in detail. Clearly, these individuals are denying Sola Fide, albeit all the while vehemently stating that they embrace it. Yet, their explanations of what they believe are incontrovertibly in opposition to the historic doctrine of Sola Fide. I offer but a few quotes from the "Auburn Statement", which taken as a whole are clear enough, IMHO, for one to see the heresy.
8. God has decreed from the foundation of the world all that comes to pass, including who would be saved and lost for all eternity. Included in His decree, however, is that some persons, not destined for final salvation, will be drawn to Christ and His people only for a time. These, for a season, enjoy real blessings, purchased for them by Christ's cross and applied to them by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament.
12. It appears that the Bible speaks of salvation, more often than not, in relational and covenantal categories, rather than in metaphysical ones. "Salvation" is not a thing we possess that can be lost and found, like car keys. It is a matter of being rightly related to God through Christ. But relationships are not static, unchanging entities. They are fluid and dynamic. Our salvation covenant with the Lord is like a marriage. If we persevere in loyalty to Christ, we will live with Him happily ever after. If we break the marriage covenant, He will divorce us. It may not be wise to call this "losing one's salvation," but it seems contrary to Scripture to say that nothing at all is lost. To draw such a conclusion appears to deny the reality of the covenant and the blessedness that is said to belong even to those who ultimately prove themselves reprobate (Heb. 10:26ff).
Advocates of the "Auburn Avenue Statement" and particularly of the teachings of Norman Shepherd are bold to say that one is justified by faith, but justification must be secured by "keeping covenant", else you be found a covenant breaker and be cut off. This is what paragraph 12 is teaching, without any doubt. Again, the "Statement" is but a brief summary of the details which when considers, the heresy becomes increasingly clear.
Edit: In short, so that there is no mistake of the heresy that is being set forth, they are intermixing Justification and Sanctification, aka: synergism.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]...it was said by Wilson (sorry, can't immediately provide the quote), that the Church has erred for centuries, even the Reformation erred, in understanding the doctrine of justification and it is the goal of the "Auburnites" to "bring the Church back to the true biblical teachings
I truly find that surprising and would have to see the quote to believe it. If you come across the quote please send it to me.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Advocates of the "Auburn Avenue Statement" and particularly of the teachings of Norman Shepherd are bold to say that one is justified by faith, but justification must be secured by "keeping covenant", else you be found a covenant breaker and be cut off. This is what paragraph 12 is teaching, without any doubt.
If Justification is secured through our covenant faithfulness or if that faithfulness in any way contributes to ones Justification as we and our confessions ordinarily use the term, then that is indeed heresy. My difference with you would certainly not be there, rather with whether or not such is being taught by Auburn Ave. Simply put, no where does the Auburn statement maintain that the “persons, not destined for final salvation, [who are] drawn to Christ and His people only for a time” are justified. Hence, it is not forensic justification from the decretal (or metaphysical) perspective that is “secured” through covenant faithfulness. But it’s not my wish to get into a debate as to what they are and are not saying as I don’t think that would be a profitable discussion. Suffice to say we agree on what would constitute a heresy here, but disagree on whether or not it is being said.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/biglaff.gif)
Buying a Mars bar instead of a Snickers at the store for your wife is a misunderstanding. 
This "misunderstanding" is of infinite importance, for it leads to everlasting torment if embraced with the heart. So I would say it doesn't need to be "fixed" but eradicated totally! (cf. Gal 1:8, 9; 5:12)
Remember, it is recorded of the Serpent, "![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/liar.gif)
". His modus operandi is to intermix truth and error in cleverly couched language so as to convince men of that which is contrary to God's truth. (A good example of this is the current attempt of those following the teachings of Norman Shepherd, e.g., Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, Wright, et al, to distort the biblical and historical teaching of Sola Fide)
