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.
