In reply to:[color:"blue"]Suffice to say we agree on what would constitute a heresy here, but disagree on whether or not it is being said.
Perhaps you inadvertently skipped over the first part of my previous reply? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] I thought I had made it clear enough, but evidently not. It is NOT the "Auburn Avenue Statement" ALONE that should be considered, but ALL that those who are involved have said and written. Remember, the "Statement" is but a SUMMARY, as is the WCF a summary. My conclusions, which are engraved in stone at this point, have been the result of reading much that has been written by myriad people who are advocating the "Auburnites". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Perhaps you inadvertently skipped over the first part of my previous reply? I thought I had made it clear enough, but evidently not. It is NOT the "Auburn Avenue Statement" ALONE that should be considered, but ALL that those who are involved have said and written. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, I believe that we should consider all that has been said by them, but you previously mentioned to me:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] read the Auburn Statement and you will have sufficient evidence </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So I was assuming there was sufficient evidence from that document alone to find what you're saying. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] My conclusions ... have been the result of reading much that has been written by myriad people who are advocating the "Auburnites". </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Likewise. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img]<br><br>~Jason
Last edited by Jason1646; Sat Jul 12, 20038:35 PM.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My conclusions ... have been the result of reading much that has been written by myriad people who are advocating the "Auburnites". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] Then my words of concern for you in my previous post are certainly apropos. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
I have dealt with some people who seem to be following the same lines as the Auburnites.<br>They have people 'saved' and 'elect' not because they are forever saved or forever elect but because they go to church and are baptised. Then these 'saved' and 'elect' people show they are still 'children of Satan' or 'tares' by their failure to keep the covenant.<br><br>They also teach that since in the OT the elect included Israelites [members of the covenant] who ended up damned [they were elect because they were israelites and circumcised] then in the NT we have elect [who are members of the New Covenant because they were baptised] being damned as well.<br><br>It can be very confusing getting to the bottom of it because they use the same words but with different meanings.
Just so you can find more information I would suggest you travel here: The Paul Page There is the articles on the New Perspective both pro and con. I must say I used to like some of what Doug Wilson taught but once he started on this I had to say good bye for he had clearly IMHO gone off the mark. But you decide.
Here is one of the main sources of the Auburnite heresy; the thesis set forth by Norman Shepherd back in 1978, which got him removed from his teaching position at Westminster Theological Seminary. If you haven't read his 34 Theses, please do and then let me know if you can also agree with it. If you have read it already, would you also say that there is nothing in the 34 Theses that is contradictory to the historic doctrine of Sola Fide?
Pilgrim,<br><br>I have no objections to providing my review of Shepherd's 34 theses on Justification, but in the spirit of wanting to preserve the context of my initial inquiry, I would like to know how they are meaningful as to whether Wilson has distorted the teaching of Justification by faith alone. Has he said or written anywhere that he subscribes to the 34 theses of Shepherd?<br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason
Hi PrestorJohn,<br><br>I appreciate you pointing out those articles, though it does not help me to sort out the question as to whether or not Wilson advocates the errors of N.T. Wright leading him to distort the teaching of Justification by faith alone. Especially when Wilson himself writes such things as:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"One of the stranger elements made in the charge by the RPCUS was that the heretical teachings that they condemned in us were inspired by what has come to be called "The New Perspective" on Paul...While there are many insights of great value in this movement, particularly from Wright, I have to say that the foundational tenets of the New Perspective are off base. Those things of value that can be found there are not unique to the movement, and those things which distinguish the school of thought are erroneous." (Reformed is Not Enough)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So if someone tells me that Wilson is a subscriber to the New Perspective, I have to conclude that Wilson is a man ignorant of what the New Perspective teaches and actually believes it even though he says he does not (and although Wilson could be called many things, I don't think he could be called theologically ignorant), or that he is intentionally deceiving people as a wolf in sheep's clothing, or that perhaps some people have been guilty of handling this case in a "Ready, Shoot, Aim!" fashion. Sorry, but given what I have read from Wilson and from his critics, my money is on the latter.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>
In reply to:[color:"blue"]In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- read the Auburn Statement and you will have sufficient evidence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I was assuming there was sufficient evidence from that document alone to find what you're saying. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]
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. The link below sums up my own reading and conclusions quite thoroughly:
That Wilson is in full agreement with the "Auburn Avenue Statement", besides the fact that he has endorsed it with his personal signature, can be seen in an article he wrote and published here:
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:
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.
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>
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 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]
I share some of your concerns. I'll address them individually.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] This is a major problem, using familar terms with new meanings. First, it breeds confusion as the flocj tries to communicate and cannot.
Agreed.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Some of these who are following after the Auburnites cling to these new deinitions as if they were always so.
I would not express the force of their claim as if they were always so, but that they were so at previous times in Reformed history.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] 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.
Cults also read the Bible, which does not implicate anyone who reads his Bible as being in a cult. To jump from calling into question the wisdom of introducing modified language to intentional distortion for the purpose of introducing heretical teachings is overextension.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Thirdly, what is the purpose of changing definitions, if one is not changing a doctrine.
The reason, according to Wilson, for introducing the paradigm that they have is to return to the mindset of our forefathers in the Reformed faith. Unlike some have charged, they are not claiming the church has been "wrong about Justification" since the time of the Reformation and even beforehand. His gripe is with the Post-Enlightenment mindset, an 18th-19th century innovation, and the way in which "Enlightenment Reformed" folks go about interpreting our forefathers. Hence their purpose for introducing modified language is to deal with the problems introduced by enlightenment thought and return to a Reformational (Medieval) mindset. Are their observations and conclusions about Post-Enlightenment thought and Medieval thought accurate? I don't know and I don't believe myself to be qualified to say at this point.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] 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.
Ah, so now you have people in the Old Covenant who are able to break God's covenant, which means they are able to lose their salvation, and now you're the heretic Mike! I say this in genuine jest, but for a point. You see, I believe the Covenant of Grace is one in essence with that of the old, and hence those with whom God established His covenant throughout all ages were only the elect. The outward administration of it has been given to both elect and non-elect, and that can be broken in either dispensation, but the inward administration by God's sovereign grace is never breakable whether Old or New. As Paul said about the OT saints it is the children of the promise who are counted as the seed. Hence, if I were to interpret your comments in light of my own understanding of the covenant, you would be teaching heresy. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/RefDoc_sig.gif)
![[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/applause.gif)
and says, and even that "faithful