you. 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.
me. I didn't call them a cult. I said it is what cults do. So by your own words, [the Bible reading example], I didn't implicate them as a cult. But whether they have an intentional desire to distort or not doesn't change what they are doing, distorting the truth, and introducung heresy.
you. 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.
me. You know Jason, I arrived at my 'reformed' beliefs without the help of the Reformed forefathers. I am speaking of the 5 points. I don't put as much emphasis on what Calvin or Luther taught as if they were thr final arbiters of the Word of God. So even if I am wrong about what Calvin taught [in these matters], I know what the Bible teaches. It is the Bible we measure teaching against. So while I certainly am not qualified to speak on whether the Auburnites match up with medieval thought, It is easy to see that do not match up with the Bible. One is not saved temporally, or you distort the meaning of teh word 'saved'. What are they saved from? Hell? But they still go there. So they were never saved from hell and hence not saved.
Here then is another problem. If one is 'saved' how does one know it is temporary or permanent? No one could be sure until the end when they finally persevered. or persevered for the last time and then died. If one can know they are saved permanently NOW then why designate any other 'saved' as temporary?
you. 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.
me. Just because you believe that the covenant of grace is one with the old does not make it so. The Bible speaks of the New Covenant as being NOT one with the Old but New being built on better promises. If a covenant is built on better promises than perforce it is built on different promises. And if the foundations are different, then the covenants must also be different. The new Covenant was sought because there was a problem with the Old Covenant, the people were unfaithful. Now we still sin today, so the New Covenant didn't change our acts but rather changed the terms by which we relate to God. Who is 100% faithful to God? No one is. But how then did the New overcome the problem of the Old? because God sees his elect through Jesus. Because we are in Him, in Christ, we are declared justified. He remembers our sins no more.
Those in only the outward administration of the New covenant are not saved. They are not elect. They are not in a covenantal relationship with God. They are not covered by the blood of Jesus. This is how the Auburnites or their followers distort the truth. For they call these people saved, they call them elect. It is a distortion that robs the words of their meanings and robs the New Covenant of its uniqueness from the Old.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]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 criticism for muddying the waters in other areas, like what it means to be united to Christ, partake of His benefits, etc. Editor's note emphasis mine
Jason in your statement you made mention of the fact that the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Statement (hereby designated AAPCS) was open to criticism because of their "muddying of the waters" Frankly I don't think they've muddied it I think they threw the baby out with the bath water. In this section of their statement:
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 baptized 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.
They are claiming that baptism regenerates a person. Because they did not say "in baptism" but "by baptism" they are siding with the RCC when they say:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I believe that water baptism is the laver of regeneration (Tit. 3:5). Baptism now saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21). In baptism we call upon the Lord, washing our sins away (Acts 22:16). I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Only an evangelical faith can see this without superstition.
What Evangelical would agree to that? This is what Toombs had to say with regards to baptism:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Quest. 34. What is the chief end of Baptism.
Ans. To testifie the Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, and Resolution of the Baptized to follow Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Q. 100. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.
Baptism doesn't save us it is a sign and a seal of Christ's salvation in us. To say that it produces initial salvation of any type is a heretical statement.
Well, I find myself in the awkward circumstances of appearing to defend everything that the Auburn men have taught. Just for the record, I want to state again that this is not the case. At the same time however, out of a desire to see the church grapple with the issues that I see as legitimate controversy rather than those that are not, I would like to respond to some of the things in your post.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Jason in your statement you made mention of the fact that the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Statement (hereby designated AAPCS) was open to criticism because of their "muddying of the waters" Frankly I don't think they've muddied it I think they threw the baby out with the bath water ... They are claiming that baptism regenerates a person. Because they did not say "in baptism" but "by baptism" they are siding with the RCC ... In fact Doug Wilson in his Short Credo on Baptism says the very same thing:
This would be correct if they were using regeneration in the sense with which you are ordinarily accustomed, but this is not the case. Once again, from Wilson's pen:
We see in this portion of the Confession that a man is "quickened and renewed" in such a way as to enable him to respond to the call of God. This might be called regeneration, theologically considered. A man is either regenerate or he is not. When the word regeneration is being used in this sense, we are talking about an invisible operation performed by the Spirit of God, who does what He does when and how it pleases Him. And when we are talking about what might be called "effectual-call-regeneration," we have to repudiate every form of baptismal or decisional regeneration. We do not control the Spirit of God at the baptismal font any more than we control Him with our spiritual law booklets. [emphasis mine]
At the same time, this is not the only legitimate use of the term regeneration.
"John Calvin, however, uses the term regeneration in a much broader, more inclusive sense, comprehending not only the first inception of new life in Christ, but also the manifestations of this new life throughout life. In other words, regeneration, or spiritual renewal, as used by Calvin, includes not only the origin of the new life, but also sanctification, the process of development or growth in the new life. "That this may be more clear", Calvin says, "let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life."" (Reformed is Not Enough, pg. 39 - 40)
Hence, when Wilson connects regeneration with Baptism, he is claiming that Baptism is the initiation into the process of having a new life in Christ, which is a continual process of development for every Christian in this life. Not new life in Christ in the sense of the spiritual rebirth that happens once ("theological" regeneration), where a person is given a new heart, but the transformation of an individual into the image of Christ (think of this use of regeneration as being "renewed" day by day such as in 2 Corinthians 4:16). Or think of regeneration as the fruit of discipleship, whose entrance is begun with Baptism as the Great Commission commands. See my remarks below on the eschatological concept of salvation before fully digesting this thought. Once again, you may not like this stipulated definition of regeneration, but if you permit it for the sake of evaluating his own worldview then your concerns about "baptismal regeneration" disappear.
You wrote:
In reply to:[color:"blue"] In reply to: I believe that water baptism is the laver of regeneration (Tit. 3:5). Baptism now saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21). In baptism we call upon the Lord, washing our sins away (Acts 22:16). I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Only an evangelical faith can see this without superstition.
What Evangelical would agree to that?
Well, since he has simply pasted quotes from Scripture there I would hope all evangelicals would agree to it. In fact, I think I can even anticipate what his response might be to you; that this proves the validity of his concerns.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Baptism doesn't save us it is a sign and a seal of Christ's salvation in us. To say that it produces initial salvation of any type is a heretical statement.
Given what's already been posted, I don't believe Wilson is making the heretical statement you fear. Keep in mind as well that Wilson (and I believe others, such as Richard Gaffin) believe that "salvation" can be viewed from an eschatological viewpoint as well (1 Peter 1:5, Hebrews 9:28, Revelation 19:1). Since salvation viewed in its widest sense also includes glorification and the destruction of Christ's enemies, Baptism can be viewed as the initiation into salvation from a historical or eschatological viewpoint (but not metaphysical, i.e., not initiating the saving influences associated with the ordo salutis).
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I didn't call them a cult. I said it is what cults do.
If the mentioning of similar cult practices had no bearing on the Auburn men as individuals (and I take your word for it), then it was an irrelevant thesis to inject into the thread.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] So even if I am wrong about what Calvin taught [in these matters], I know what the Bible teaches. It is the Bible we measure teaching against. So while I certainly am not qualified to speak on whether the Auburnites match up with medieval thought, It is easy to see that do not match up with the Bible. One is not saved temporally, or you distort the meaning of teh word 'saved'. What are they saved from? Hell? But they still go there. So they were never saved from hell and hence not saved. Here then is another problem. If one is 'saved' how does one know it is temporary or permanent? No one could be sure until the end when they finally persevered. or persevered for the last time and then died. If one can know they are saved permanently NOW then why designate any other 'saved' as temporary?
Mike, consider the following verses, and for a moment, just consider the possibility that the word “salvation” does not always and only refer to the moment of conversion:
Hebrews 9:28: So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
Romans 13:11: And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
1 Peter 1:3-5: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Given these verses, is it not true that there is a sense in which salvation is still awaiting us and that only those who persevere to the end faithfully will be saved?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Just because you believe that the covenant of grace is one with the old does not make it so.
Thank you for that reminder. My point was simply to demonstrate how a refusal to think outside one’s own system of thought will result in an inability to accurately assess internal coherency in somebody else’s paradigm because he’ll keep reading back his own terms into it.
I have responded to the remainder of your post in a new thread since it is dealing with a new topic.
There is a difference between being in a cult and doing cult like acts. So just because they are not defined as a cult does not mean that their redefining of words is not divisive to unity and disruptive to the Body. So it has bearing on this discussion.
you ask: Mike, consider the following verses, and for a moment, just consider the possibility that the word “salvation” does not always and only refer to the moment of conversion:
Hebrews 9:28: So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
Romans 13:11: And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
1 Peter 1:3-5: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Given these verses, is it not true that there is a sense in which salvation is still awaiting us and that only those who persevere to the end faithfully will be saved?
me. Yes it is true. But that is a far cry then saying someone is saved but goes to hell. We are saved now, we are being saved, and we will be saved completely when we see Him face to face. But in each stage of 'being saved' we draw closer to what we will be. Therefore in the first 'save' at conversion the last 'save' at resurrection is a truth we can look forward to.
And while there are those who THINK themselves saved but are not so they do not and can not persevere, it is not as if they were saved in the first place. Since it is God who looks at the hearts of men and we who only see the outward side, we as fallible men might think a person saved who is not. We baptize them and participate with them in the Supper, and give them the right hand of fellowship. But it is God who saves and when He does it, it is a permanent salvation.
you. Thank you for that reminder. My point was simply to demonstrate how a refusal to think outside one’s own system of thought will result in an inability to accurately assess internal coherency in somebody else’s paradigm because he’ll keep reading back his own terms into it.
me. Jason, I am not trying to address their internal coherency of the paradigm they preach. I am addressing the divisiveness and disruption of unity they propagate by their false teachings. To say that one who is saved and elect may go to hell is against what the Bible teaches, and hence wrong. Because they redefine terms to redefine doctrine, they distort what the Bible says, unless one thinks that the dcotrine taught now is incorrect and not biblical.
Here's a response to some of Schlissel's teachings by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema: ( Jason I would invite your comments on this [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img])
The original article can be found here: http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=105 The following response can be found at the bottom of the article, along with another one by David Linden. Schilsclle's response can be found here : http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=103 ( I have not finished reading his yet, but decided to post just see what are every one's thoughts, since I believe they contribute to the current discussion) Furthermore here's another article which seem to teach his view on justification [IMHO, the section "What’s the Big Idea? (Hint: It isn’t Justification) " it seems to have resemblance to the new perspective]: http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=98
Also in response to Rev. Schlissel's Ancaster Address, Dr. Cornelis Venema, Professor at Mid America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, Indiana, wrote the following to the Christian Renewal:
Like Rev. Derrick J. Vander Meulen (Dec. 17, 2001), I too hoped the report on Rev. Steve Schlissel's address at a Reformation Day Rally at Redeemer College (Nov. 12, 2001) was an inaccurate account of what he had said. However, after reading a transcribed account of his address and his reply to Rev. Vander Meulen's letter to the editor, it appears that the report in Christian Renewal accurately reflects Rev. Schlissel's views.
If I understand those views correctly, they include such claims as the following:
1. Luther wrongly distinguished the law from the gospel and thereby fundamentally misrepresented the biblical, covenantal view of the gospel.
2. The biblical, covenantal view of the gospel is not so much interested in the question, what must I do to be saved?, as it is in the question, what does God require in order that I might thereby obtain eternal life. In this covenantal approach, which draws no sharp distinctions between law and gospel, it may be said that the gospel is equivalent to the requirement that we love God by obeying His commandments.
3. We should not bother at Reformation day rallies with too much talk about the so-called sola's of the Reformation. These are often merely slogans, abstractions that get in the way of a proper covenantal understanding.
4. Indeed, theological systems are an annoying thing at best, a threat to the church at worst. Because Reformed believers and churches often fight about doctrinal clarity and confessional precision, they lose their grip upon the rich, covenantal themes of Scripture.
My reply to Rev. Schlissel, in respect to each of these points, would be as follows:
1. With Calvin I regard Luther to have served as a virtual apostle to the church by rediscovering the gospel of God's saving and justifying work through the One and Only Savior, Jesus Christ. Whatever differences may obtain between Calvin and Luther (and such differences, I acknowledge, do exist), they were soul mates on the teaching of justification by grace alone on account of the work of Christ alone received by faith alone. This unanimity of conviction is, moreover, enshrined in the confessional symbols of the Reformation, including Lord's Day 23 & 24 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
2. When it comes to the question, upon what basis and for what reason am I right with God and an heir of eternal life?, Reformed believers have insisted as rigorously as Luther that the law is repugnant (Calvin's language) to the gospel. Christ's obedience to the law and substitutionary endurance of its sanctions are the alone sufficient basis for the believer's acceptance and right standing with God. The law, distinguished from the gospel, can only require what no sinner is able to do. The law, distinguished from the gospel, can only teach me to know my sin and misery (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2).
3. As I understand the sola's of the Reformation, they have everything to do with a living and proper view of God's gracious covenant with His people in Christ. The supreme norm and standard for the covenant is the Spirit of Christ speaking in Scripture (sola Scriptura). The establishment, administration and perfection of life in covenant with the Triune God spring from God's sovereign, unconditional grace (sola gratia). The glory and splendor of Christ's saving work as Mediator of the covenant lies in its perfection and sufficiency as the exclusive basis for the justification of the sinner (solo Christo). And the confidence and joy of the covenant child of God issue from a believing acceptance of Christ's saving mediation (sola fide)-Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling.
4. Though we do not place our confidence in our theological understanding or systematic reflection upon the teaching of the Word of God, these are necessary and beneficial to the church in the fulfillment of her calling to guard the deposit entrusted to her care. I can think of no higher duty that falls to the Christian minister than that of speaking plainly, clearly, and consistently of the things taught us in the Word of God. To that end we should make the fullest and most grateful use of the confessional symbols of the Reformation, and the inheritance that is ours in the tradition of Reformed theology.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of Rev. Schlissel's publicly recorded address and comments. However, they no doubt leave themselves open to misunderstanding, as Rev. Vander Meulen's and my comments indicate. On matters that concern the gospel, no such misunderstanding may be permitted. Either Christ saves us to the uttermost, and that by grace from first to last, or He does His part and we complete His work by doing ours. Between these alternatives there may be no compromise.
Cornelis P. Venema Dyer, Indiana
in His Grace, 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)
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Here's a response to some of Schlissel's teachings by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema: ( Jason I would invite your comments on this. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Heh, thanks for the invitation carlos, but I'll have to pass on that one.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/eek.gif" alt="eek" title="eek[/img] Schlissel has simply said too many controversial things in a provocative spirit for me to invest much time sorting it out. He made his bed and he can lie in it.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason
I see what you are saying, and I agree. I guess my point and my idea, which I should have made more clear was this. Here is that verse again... <blockquote>[color:blue]For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.</font color=blue> Genesis 3:5 (ESV)</blockquote>Here was my idea for how Satan kept his promise:<br><br>I think that maybe when Satan says that their eyes will be open and that they will [color:blue]"be like God,"</font color=blue> he was only trying to give them a sense of independence. Being like God, they would believe that they didn't need God and that they were the means and ends to their salvation and that God was not. Maybe kinda something like what Paul states, <blockquote>[color:blue]For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.</font color=blue> Romans 1:21-23 (ESV)</blockquote>And as time went on, they began to try and find ways to worship, hence where idols came from. Being dead in sin after the fall, there was still that desire inside to worship something. And then, man began to think of himself more and more and stopped worshiping outside things and began to worship himself. Hence the [color:blue]"images resembling mortal man"</font color=blue>. They elevated their supposed "free will" to a place where only God should be (they made it sovereign) and therefore thought themselves to be like God, just like Satan said they would. <br><br>Maybe I am just totally off, and if so, please let me know. That is just where my mind was at in that post, and where it is at even now, but I am open to changing my view if it is wrong.<br>
Hi Carlos,<br><br>I never set out to comment on "the Auburn four", but Doug Wilson specifically. And no, I do not believe that he is distorting the doctrine of Justification by faith alone. I think I have produced sufficient proof for this, and the others who have asserted to the contrary, in my mind, just continue to make the same mistakes about which I have already cautioned. That being said, I would say things have been said by other participants in the Auburn conferences that clearly lead to confusion over Justification by Faith alone but that is different than actually distorting the doctrine itself. Much of the confusion arises from taking terms that are used within what they would call a "decretal" paradigm and implementing them in a "covenantal" paradigm. To use them in a different context does not distort the previous meanings given (and with which they repeatedly agree) in a decretal paradigm, but it can clearly be confusing. Furthermore, Wilson has made a greater effort than the others to explain this, so when I see him being accused of distorting the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, I believe it is the propagation of a false accusation.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason
In reply to:Much of the confusion arises from taking terms that are used within what they would call a "decretal" paradigm and implementing them in a "covenantal" paradigm. To use them in a different context does not distort the previous meanings given (and with which they repeatedly agree) in a decretal paradigm, but it can clearly be confusing.
The problem is: (1) that there is no biblical basis for their "covenantal paradigm"; it has been manufactured, (2) It is contradictory to the "decretal paradigm", which I have demonstrated by critiquing one of the paragraphs from the "Auburn Avenue Statement", which Wilson freely signed as being in full agreement. Thus, when you present what you consider to be "clear" statements re: justification by faith, authored by Wilson and compare them to the "Auburn Statement", which he also authored, at least in part, then what can one conclude but there is a serious inconsistency in his thinking at best. The "confusion" comes when the attempt is made to try and convince thinking and theologically able people that contradictory statements, whether they be restricted to Wilson's personal statements compared with the "Auburn Avenue Statement" or the historic Confessions and the "Auburn Avenue Statement" are in agreement. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]
I for one, have no desire to play "Musical Paradigms", especially when one of the paradigms is said to be a "correction of errors" which have been propagated for centuries by the Reformed Churches, and has no biblical justification other than attempts to "read into" the Scriptures a hyper-covenantalism. The technique has been tried before by many, e.g., Barth, Brunner, Spinoza, etc., etc.. In the recent past, some have given in to the temptation of the Evil One and taken the "bait", e.g., the UPCUSA, CRC and the RCA and look where they are now! I have no taste for "poison fruit".....! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
Pilgrim,<br><br>As I understand it, Shepherd was removed from his post at Westminster though his teaching was never deemed heretical. I thought he was removed because he was too controversial. I cannot comment on Sheperd's writings because I am not familiar with them. <br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron
I was at WTS during the Shepherd uproar. The "too controversial" phrase should be considered to be an euphemism. No one is removed from a teaching position at WTS for anything less than a very serious matter. Shepherd's teaching was "controversial" to be sure, because it was contrary to the established doctrines upon which WTS and the church were founded, re: Justification by Faith alone.
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.
I probably won't spend a lot of time on this one, but below I've attempted to interact with probably some of Sheperd's statements that are considered the most troublesome.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).
There are usually two problems people have with this. (1) They feel that Sheperd believed that one is not justified until the end of the salvation process. This I believe contradicts some of Sheperd’s other points. (2) They believe that Sheperd taught that one is justified on the basis of one's own merit, which too would contradict other statements he has made.
I think Sheperd is in agreement with Murray on this one. Murray states: "Whether any will be actually justified by works either in this life or at the final judgment is beside the apostle's interest and design and this juncture. The burden of this verse is that not the hearers or mere possessors of the law will be justified before God but that in terms of the law the criterion is doing, not hearing...there is no need to import questions that are not relevant to the universe of discourse."
I would take Sheperd as saying here that all those who would be openly and publicly declared righteous on the last day will be those who were obedient to Christ. I cannot construe from this, especially in light of his other statements, that he felt that the grounds of this open justification would be our works. Rather, I believe that he meant that good works belong to the justified and only they have them. I find it plausible that Sheperd was speaking of justification in a demonstrative sense, but this need not be the case. In other words, he might have been speaking of our works vindicating (i.e. "justifying") our invisible faith and union with Christ.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).
I must admit, this not the happiest of phrases, but I must allow for it based upon his other points. I believe (or better yet, I hope) what he was saying was that if one were to fall away from good works, such a one would lose his justification. This is indeed true. The question now becomes, can one fall away from the grace that effects good works? I believe Sheperd’s answer is "no", which we read in other places. I think we read this sort of thing in the “book of warnings”, Hebrews; but we also read that the author is confident of better things for God’s elect – the things that accompany salvation...
{Added later, after edited} No doubt, it does sound as if Sheperd may have been saying that our obedience keeps us justified. This is troublesome indeed.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).
This wording is in my estimation pathetic. The word "necessary" would suggest that godliness is a "condition" that must be met, rather than a consequence or fruit of what God works in the justified. However, I must grant that his words were simply poorly chosen because in the same breath Sheperd speaks of the exclusive grounds of justification being the merits of Christ alone. I must interpret his unclear statement in light of the clearer one he makes in the same breath. Accordingly, I must take the word "necessary" as suggesting that godliness will be a quality that will accompany the justified, at least to some extent.
As my pastor has pointed out to me, whether one is a heretic or not should be easily qualified in just a few minutes of questioning.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Goodnight.gif)
I have no taste for "poison fruit".....! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)