True Greatness

Now that I'm getting further into the semester and the work is starting to pile up (if I stop and think about the papers for to long the panic attacks start to set in) the posts are getting shorter and farther between. But even in the business of classes, papers, work, and other activities, I have to make time for some reading of my own. The most recent of these "distractions" has been C.J. Mahaney's most recent book, Humility: True Greatness. I know that I have expressed my immense admiration for Mahaney as well as his church planting group, Sovereign Grace Ministries, but after having the privilege of reading more from his pen, I can't help but acknowledge once more the amazing work that is being done through this man and his ministry. Theirs seems to be the model for which all of us Reformed Charismatics are reaching for.

In this latest book, Mahaney undertakes a discussion of what I would image would be one of the most difficult topics to write or teach on, and he does in the same way that is characteristic of all his material - in light of the cross of Christ. He starts off with an introduction that covers the topics of the Biblical promises to those who are humble and the pervasiveness of the sin of pride in the lives of all, believers and unbelievers. In the second part of the book, Mahaney discusses how we naturally conceive of greatness and how that definition has been turned upside down because of the fact that Christ, God in the flesh, has revealed His might and power by allowing His enemies to crucify Him on a cross. The remainder of the book is made up of practical ways that we can cultivate humility in our own lives. The great achievement of this portion of the book is that is that Mahaney's suggestions never lapse into legalism, but rather, deal with the whole issue in terms of how we can gratefully respond to the work of Christ. C.J. gets practical, but he never separates our practice from the perfect practice of Christ.

Mahaney offers a list of daily practices as well as more specialized veins of study and service that help to show us "how to weaken pride and cultivate humility." They are well worth taking note of putting into action:

Always:
1. Survey the wonder of the cross of Christ

As each day begins:
2. Begin your day by acknowledging your dependence upon God and your need for God.
3. Begin your day by expressing gratefulness to God.
4. Practice the spiritual disciplines - prayer, study of God's Word, worship. Do this consistently each day and at the day's outset, if possible.
5. Seize your commute time to memorize and meditate on Scripture.
6. Cast your cares upon Him, for He cares for you.

As each day ends:
7. At the end of the day, transfer the glory to God.
8. Before going to sleep, receive this gift of sleep from God and acknowledge his purpose for sleep (a reminder of our dependence on Him).

For special focus:
9. Study the attributes of God.
10. Study the doctrines of grace.
11. Study the doctrine of sin.
12. Play golf as much as possible.
13. Laugh often, and laugh often at yourself.

Throughout your days and weeks:
14. Identify evidences of grace in others.
15. Encourage and serve others each and every day.
16. Invite and pursue correction.
17. Respond humbly to trials.

Saint and Sinner

For anyone who saw the comment and subsequent response on my Mahaney and Cage, Revealing My Sin post, I've got another thought to add to it. This is not a thought of my own, but rather one that I came across this morning in Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians. I think there is no one better qualified to comment on how we should see ourselves in light of our great sin as well as our great savior:

This I say, that thou mayest be able to answer, if any shall thus object: Christ came into the world, and at once took away our sins, and cleansed us by His blood: what need we then to hear the gospel continually, or to receive the sacraments? True it is, that inasmuch as thou beholdest Christ, the law and sin are quite abolished. But Christ is not yet come unto thee; or, if He be come, there are yet remnants of sin left in thee; for where concupiscence, heaviness of spirit, and fear of death is, there is yet also the law and sin; but when He cometh, He driveth away fear and heaviness, and bringeth peace and quiteness of conscience.

Let there be not doubt that for Luther, to "hear the gospel continually," includes being constantly confronted the depth of our sin. Few people had as significant an understanding of their own sinfulness as did Martin Luther. And yet, few, if any in church history have better understood or done more to defend and propagate the pure, unadulterated gospel of God's grace and all the blessings that come with it. Let us confess along with Luther that we are simultaneously Saints and Sinners.

The Ethics of Unrequited Love

How do we, as unmarried Christians, deal with romantic feelings, returned and unreturned, in a way that causes us to be more satisfied with Christ and more loving towards those we are drawn to romantically and those who are drawn romantically to us? Must love be returned for it to be worthwhile, or can unrequited love also be a love that conforms us more closely to the image of Christ? These are the types of questions that Laura A. Smit deals with in her book, Loves Me, Loves Me Not: The Ethics of Unrequited Love. Dr. Smit offers advice on how the love that we have for others can be a means of grace for us, even when it is not returned. She also discusses how we should act and show grace towards those who may be interested in us but whom we have no romantic feelings towards.

Our Christian culture often seems to simply encourage singles to try and make it through, to try and be happy, to try and be satisfied with Christ until that right person comes along. Marriage is seen as the normal course taken by all, and singles are, for all practical purposes, just bidding their time until they themselves can get married. Smit sees this as directly opposed to the New Testament picture of marriage. She states:

...this should be true of all romantic relationships: the burden of proof is on the decision to enter into such a relationship, not the decision to hold back.

With this in mind, the idea that in the light of the new creation that is coming we are being called to a life where we will not be given in marriage but will be consumed with a love for the person of Christ that will spill out towards others, single Christians must learn to deal with the issues of romance in a way that increases their love for Christ and develops a more Christ-like attitude toward others. Smit suggests that this can be done by seeing those who do not return our love as means of grace. These situations can give us a greater understanding of the way that Christ loves us. By loving someone who does love us in the same way we are disciplined to love selflessly, to learn to value a person simply for what we see in them and what they reveal to us of Christ. In this respect, unrequited love is not something that should be spurned or moved past quickly. If the only purpose we see for romantic love is to get married as quickly as we can, then we will never see unrequited love as something truly beneficial. Smit also deals with how we can reject and deal with rejection in a way that works towards the goal of seeing Christ's image formed in us to a greater extent.

This was a really interesting and encouraging read. There can be no doubt that the emphasis placed on marriage in the evangelical community can be disproportionate to the emphasis placed on the legitimacy of and the need for those who have purposed to remain single (which is virtually non-existent). As a twenty year old undergrad, I can personally attest to the existence of the mind-set in the church that says once you hit a certain age you are expected to start thinking about getting married. The implication seems to be that if you are not married or looking for someone to marry by the time you reach a certain age, then you are probably living in some sort of prolonged adolescence, one which you cannot escape until you are married. Smit provides a wonderful alternative to this mind-set and equips singles to deal with romantic feelings in a way that affirms them as good and as a means to grow closer to Christ through the love of another person.

Mahaney and Cage, Revealing My Sin

How can we understand the immensity of Christ's work on the cross? Is it enough for us to simply say that God has been good to us, that He showed us mercy by sacrificing His Son on our behalf? This is a glorious, no doubt, but how often do we feel the force of Christ's work when we hear these words? I'm not sure about anyone else, but when I hear that Christ sacrificed Himself for me, I usually have a passing thought of some of the bad things I've done, express a shallow, fleeting feeling of sorrow, and then give Him a quick thanks for forgiving me for that time that I lied or that other time when I had a lustful thought.

Is this enough? Certainly there is some truth in this sort of a response, but can any of us actually believe that these shallow feelings of remorse over our petty sins is the extent of the meaning of the cross? Doesn't it seem that if we are to begin to grasp even some tiny part of the significance of the cross, that we are going to have to have a far more graphic and real understanding of what sin looks like and specifically how repulsive, evil, and egregious we ourselves are in our sin? How can we be continually struck with the full force of the grace of God in salvation if we are not continually confronted with the complete perversion and repugnance of our own sin? If we are to know what it meant for Christ to take on and become all of the sin that has ever been or ever will be committed, the surely we will need a realistic image of sin in our minds.

I have been reading Christ Our Mediator by C.J. Mahaney. Mahaney attempts to hit us with the force of our sin and our need for a mediator in light of God's holiness. He states that:

In making this point, my ultimate purpose is not to convict you of sin, but to convince you of grace. Unless you're deeply aware of your sin, and of what an affront it is to God's holiness, and of how impossible it is for Him to respond to this sin with anything other than furious wrath - you'll never appreciate grace, and it will never be amazing to you. Only those who are truly aware of their sin can truly cherish grace.

But how can we understand the full force of our sin? I think it is safe to say that if we have a proper understanding of the seriousness of our sin, this understanding will be regularly followed by feelings of horror over the grotesqueness of it. If we are honest, I think that we will admit that our daily transgressions and failings, deadly sins thought they are, rarely hit us with the force that they hit Christ in the Garden of Gathsemane when he was so burdened by the thought of them that he was unable to stand.

No doubt, the way in which we begin to realize the full measure of our sin will have a large degree of variety for each person as it is revealed to them by God. I was recently confronted with my sin in a way that I don't think we often enough allow for, and in many cases might discourage altogether. Last night I watched the movie 8MM, starring Nicolas Cage and Joaquin Phoenix, with some friends. It is a deeply disturbing film that is centered around a murder investigation in the underground pornography business. It depicts vial individuals who participate in the worst kinds of sexual and murderous sins. It shows the effects that these things can have on a "normal" like Cage's character. It makes not excuses regarding environment or upbringing for the people who participate in these soul scaring activities, but rather, as one character confesses, "I do these things because I like them."

I was completely repulsed by the images and characters in this film - which, I might add, was the entire point of the film. The most disturbing thing about it though, is not that these sort of repulsive and nauseating things are done somewhere, by someone - but rather, that my own repulsive and nauseating attitudes and thoughts come a whole lot closer to these sort of things than I am comfortable admitting. After watching a film like this, I cannot just dismiss my sins as little missteps that may grieve God, but in reality don't have that much consequence. I cannot think of Christ's burden taken to the cross as something less the worst possible fate that any person could dread.

But also, I cannot help but shout for joy over the grace that I have been shown! I cannot stop thinking about the love of Christ that he has taken these things on himself for me. I cannot stop wondering at the fact that it is not only the abstract concept of sin the He has forgiven, but it is my very own horrific transgressions that no longer count against me. This is an amazing revelation. If we are to truly understand and rejoice in God's grace, we must truly understand our own depravity. I believe that of the many creative ways that God has of doing this, one of them can be through artistic expressions of this depravity. Our God is unlimited and truly endless! We can see that in the unbelievable creativity and unpredictability of the cross. I believe that in order that we may better understand the depths of this glorious work, He will also use creative means to reveal to us our own sin.

Let us not shy away from the confession that we are the worst of sinners. It only makes Christ a more glorious Saviour.

Analyzing Auburn Avenue

Since I've posted reviews of Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough, and a couple of N.T. Wright books recently, I figured that I had better make a recommendation of a book that was clearly not in the vein of Auburn Avenue/New Perspective. Auburn Avenue: A Biblical Analysis by Brian M. Schwertley is a refutation of the errors made by the proponents of Auburn Avenue theology of the Federal Vision.

I wish I could recommend it more highly. While I agree with most (if not all) of the basic points that Schwertley makes, I find the tone of the book to be a little disturbing. You would hope that while defending the Reformed understanding of justification, the most gracious act of God towards sinners, that Schwertley would be able to correct the deviations of his brothers in Christ in a gracious and loving way. No doubt, he would respond with a warning about the danger false teaching in the Church and the need to root out those who spread error (the appendix is entitled Christ's Warning Concerning False Teachers). While I agree that this is true, I am also convinced that this can be done in way that is loving and seeks not only to condemn, but also to restore. I do not believe that Mr. Schwertley has accomplished this. He regularly refers to the proponents of the Federal Vision as heretics (an assessment that I don't disagree with, although I wish the would refrain from using the term until they have been more plainly confronted with their errors by those in authority over them) and about halfway through the book he begins to refer to them as the "Auburn Avenue 'theologians' " (using quotation marks around the term theologians). This was a tactic that I found to be annoying, to say the least.

While I am disappointed with the tone of the book and some passages that seemed to be less than fair in their representations of his opponents positions, there is some excellent content. Schwertley does a good job of laying out a clear, biblical definition of justification and then showing the nuanced but serious deviations from this position made by the Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkens and co. His refutation of their rejection of the distinction of the visible and invisible church is particularly strong, as is his discussion on the issue of assurance. I found the most valuable aspect to be his discussion of the relation of faith and works in James, a point of particular contention in this debate. He lays out the proper way understanding this relation more clearly than I have ever seen it explained before:

James, from the start of his discussion, emphasizes that he is rebuking a claim to faith, a profession of faith but not a real saving faith...If one proceeds on the assumption that James is criticizing true saving faith, then the passage not only blatantly contradicts the teaching of Christ and Paul, but also is self-contradictory, for a faith cannot be genuine and worthless at the same time.

It is clear and insightful passages such as this that make this book worthwhile despite its shortcomings in other areas.

Jesus is Lord and Caesar Is Not

I hope that I don't concern anyone by the fact that this is my second review of an N.T. Wright book in the last month or so. I know that when I see other people referencing his work on a regular basis I begin to become slightly suspicious, due to his errors on the subject of justification. However, while we must show discernment while navigating Wright's thought because of this error, there is certainly no need to dismiss his work, seeing that it is invaluable in many other ways.

The Millennium Myth was written in 1999 to counter the numerous Millennium theories that thought 2000 would bring with it the end of the world or otherwise apocalyptic events. However, the message of the book has lost no relevance six years after the turn of the century. Wright starts out by explaining the origin of our modern calendar. He notes that while many political and revolutionary movements have attempted to introduce new dating systems centered around the institution of their party or leader. During the French Revolution, there was an attempt to create a new calendar with the beginning of the Revolution as the starting point. When Dionysius, a monk from Scythia, introduced a new dating system around AD 500, he was employing a similar method. The difference in his system is that instead of inaugurating the new age around the rule of Caesar and the Roman power of the Roman empire, (the ruling political power at the time) Dionysius centered his system of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. By doing this, Dionysius was proclaiming that the power of Caesar is not what sets the world's agenda. Instead, it is the rule of the true Lord, Jesus Christ, who's power and victory were made known through his death that really matters.

Wright goes on to dispel some of the popular myths, usually spread by Dispensational thought, surrounding the millennium, focusing specifically on distinguishing the true meaning of the apocalypse or Revelation from the ideas of "earthquakes, cosmic collapses, giant meteorites, [and] interplanetary warfare." He also gives excellent summaries of Enlightenment and Postmodern thought and how they affect our world. Through the whole book runs this idea that "Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn't." Because of this truth, we are not doomed to the hopeless (and often accurate) conclusions of postmodernism. We now have "hope for the postmodern world," knowing that the Lordship of Christ gives us a new context in which to offer a solution to the poor and hurting in the world. The power of governments and presidents can never offer what Jesus has purchased for the world through his death. Rulers cannot offer the remission of sins - Jesus can. Head's of state cannot offer peace to a troubled conscience - Jesus can. This declaration gives us more than enough reason to offer up joyous praise and thanksgiving throughout this millennium and for all the millennium to come.

Current Events In Light of the Cross

If you have been following the news story of the cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad that were published in a Danish newspaper, causing outrage amongst the Muslim community, then this article, Being Mocked, by John Piper should be of great interest. I know that I often find myself struggling to know how I should respond to current affairs and world events in light of Christ's work on the cross. It is not always easy to have something worth saying on a particular issue and, unfortunately, it seems that often the only things that Christian leaders can offer when commenting on such issues are trite, moralistic statements that in some way make reference to God. Piper, however, has insight on this matter that is absolutely invaluable. His comments are those of someone who's life is so defined by the truth of the Cross that any issue he discusses is bound to be seen more clearly in its light.

Together For the Gospel

Just wanted to direct people towards another group blog that I've happened upon. I'm really upset that I have only just recently found it, but now that I have, I would have to say that it' s probably my favorite of any of the group blogs that I read. It's contributors are (left to right) C.J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Denver of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi.

These guys are amazing scholars with credentials and various organizations that are far to numerous to begin to list here. The blog is part of an alliance between these leaders from various Reformation traditions who are also putting on a conference in Louisville, KY in April. Check out the site and while you are there take a look the blog. These are all amazing men, but I've got to say, C.J. is quite possibly one of my favorite people in the world! Reformed, charismatic, hilarious, and an ex-jock who likes to take jabs at the "nerdy" bookworm types that he's in dialogue with. Great stuff!

The Possibilities of Tithing

I have recently been forced to think more deeply about the issue of tithing than I have in the past. While I certainly agree with the principle, I must confess, I have always been very uncomfortable with the common understanding of tithing as an obligatory rendering of 10% of an individuals income. The principle (or as some would say, "the rule") of tithing is often correlated to the Levitical tithe (Lev. 27:30-33), which is where the problem begins for me. If tithing, or a giving of 10% of the "herd" was a mandatory part of the Levitical law, then how is it that this particular conception of tithing is to be carried over into the New Covenant and spoken of as if it serves an identical purpose? Why should the tithe see continuation into the New Covenant while other ceremonial and civic aspects of the Mosaic Law are realized to be fulfilled in Christ?

Once again, I realize that tithing is not simply found in the Mosaic Law. It is a principle that is found all through out the Old Testament, and into the New Testament. The rendering of our wealth unto God is not something that we are released from, nor should we desire to be released from. However, it seems that most teaching does not conceive of the tithe so much as an eternal principle which allows believers a concrete expression of their gratitude toward God. Rather, it seems that it is more often conceived of as an unbending demand of God upon us of exactly 10% of our income, as though our keeping of this rule will somehow achieve or maintain favor for us in the eyes of God. No doubt, few people would recognize this as representing their position on tithing. "Of course tithing won't achieve us favor with God, only Christ can do that," I'm sure (or at least I hope) most believers would respond. But if this is really true, then why is it that in the minds of most of us, the tithe is still seen as a rule which says we must give 10% out of every paycheck? Why would we give this particular Mosaic law (and yes, I realize that there is a bigger discussion to be had here regarding the nature of the Mosaic Law) preference of practice over others?

There is no doubt, we must give of our wealth unto God for the building up of the local church and for the need of the Church at large. However, I'm convinced that this truth finds an even greater expression in light of the finished work of Christ on the cross than it had in the Levitical law where 10% was required. I believe that 1 Timothy 6:17-19 expresses the attitude toward tithing that we are now to have in light of Christ:

As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.

The tithe is no longer a jot or tittle in the Law that must be fulfilled for righteousness. The principle of the tithe, which was expressed as a tenth of an individuals income in the Mosaic Law, is now, in light of Christ, a way for us to express our gratitude to God for the work of his Son. It is a way to express the unity of the body of Christ, showing that we "hold all things in common" as did the church in Acts. Finally, and perhaps most of all, it is a way for us to show that we do not place our trust in the "uncertainty of riches" but rather, that we place our trust completely and wholely on the person of Christ.

Conceived of in such a manner, I believe that we could begin to see the practice of tithing through whole new eyes. No longer must the weekly tithe check represent something that we simply owe to God (despite the continual urgings of pastors to "give joyfully!"). We are now able to see the tithe as a way in which we participate with the spiritual and heavenly activities of God while we are still in our fallen, as yet unglorified state. It is a way that we can begin to see the Kingdom of God realized in the Earth in a real and eminently practical way. It can act sacramentally as way in which we acknowledge the reality of the promised glory by the keeping of the sign, whether this means giving 10, 50, or 100 percent of what we earn. If tithing is simply a rule, even a biblical or "covenant" rule, then it is purely a work of the law, expecting a certain return on a certain work performed; of that I want no part. However, if it be a response of gratitude to the message of Christ crucified, a way to declare that our hope and confidence rest solely on Christ alone and not on the wealth and provision of this world, then I joyfully take part in the taking up of the tithe.

The "Academic Study" of Christian Theology

In my Christian Doctrine class this semester (in which we are undertaking the "academic study of religion"), we are reading Introduction to Christian Theology by Bradley C. Hanson. Professor Hanson is a liberal Lutheran with, as he puts it, "rather considerable agreement with liberation and feminist theologies." After the first chapter of reading, which gave a definition of faith and theology, we were asked to jot down a few thoughts that we had on the text. This was what I wrote, and please consider that I am trying to be diplomatic and polite in my response to something that I see as a defacing of true God-centered theology:

In reading the first chapter of Bradley C. Hansen’s Introduction to Christian Theology, I found that I was not quite satisfied with his definition of theology. Hansen defines theology as 1) “reflection on religious faith,” 2) “reflection on a religious faith,” that is, a particular faith, not simply reflection on faith in general, and 3) “personally involved reflection.” While these definitions certainly do describe at least some aspect of the study of theology, it seems that there is a large aspect of the discipline that they fail to capture.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, said that the sum of theology is the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. English Puritan, William Ames, calls theology the “doctrine of living to God.” These definitions contain an element that is lacking in Hanson’s definition; that is, the focus on knowledge of God. The very word “theology” is based on the Greek word for God, “Theos.” Hanson’s definition is comprised solely of the human end of faith. It is the study of the faith that people hold and the reflection upon those beliefs. While Calvin and Ames both take in to consideration the human, personal end of theology, they also recognize that the ultimate object of theology is not man, but God. While Hansen’s definition is good as far as it goes, it is deficient in what seems to be the most important part of the discipline: God. Theology is not simply the study of an individual’s faith, but rather the study of an individual’s faith in light of the revelation of God.

My proffesor took the time at the beginning of the class period yesterday to address the criticism that I had brought to the reading, citing it as a standard controversy over how theology should be defined. While he was certainly very polite in his response and acknowledged it as a good question to ask, his explanation was clearly a correction of the objection that I brought. As he put it, in the academic study of religion (the legitimacy of which is another topic that would be terribly interesting to bring up with him) we are starting from an anthropological standpoint, studying what is common amongst religions in different cultures. It is the study of what Paul Tillich would call the "ultimate concern" of each religion. In Christianity, the "ultimate concern" - the object that all other things are centered around and focused on - is the Theos or God. Therefore, when a Christian does theology, the focus will be God. However, for another faith it might be something else. Christians simply have the advantage of having the practice of theology named after their particular "ultimate reality." Given this example of a relativistic, potentially God-less definition of Theology, I hope it is evident why I am so cynical of a supposedly objective, "academic" study of religion that is removed from any sort of alligience to the truth of a particular religion.

Is Reformed Enough?

In an attempt to become more familiar with the current Auburn Avenue debate, I recently read Douglas Wilson's Reformed is Not Enough. This was written in 2002, the same time that Wilson, Steve Wilkens, Steve Schlissel, and John Barach were accused by the Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS of teaching new doctrines that deny some of the essential elements of justification. It was claimed that their teachings were "contrary to the Bible and the Westminster standards." These accusations were brought in light of teachings offered by these four at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. This book addresses largely the same issues that brought these charges and also acts to some degree as a response to them. It also serves the purposes of being a primer on the basics of the Auburn Avenue position, albeit a fairly conservative statement of these positions.

I must admit, I don't care much for the little of Wilson that I have read before, and no doubt, this prejudice will come through to a degree in my response to this book. The driving theme behind Wilson's attempt to "reform" the Reformation tradition is the idea of the "objectivity of the covenant." His conception of the objective nature of the covenant includes removing the distinction of the visible and the invisible church, affirming a form of baptismal regeneration, allowing for true "Christians" (according to his understanding of anyone who makes a profession of faith and partakes in the sacraments as a true Christian without acknowledging that there are false brothers present in the midst of the Church - if this sounds confusing then we're in the same boat) to fall away from salvation, a view of justification that includes an eschatalogical vindication according to a believers faithfulness to the covenant, among other things. According to Wilson, if the covenant is truly objective in nature and if the sacraments are truly affective, then anyone who apparently enters into covenant with God and his church and partakes of the sacraments must receive the blessings that they confer and therefore must be saved in a very real sense.

Wilson spends the first part of the book attempting to secure his allegiance to traditional Reformed thought. He would add, however, that most modern Reformed theologians, being influenced by Enlightenment thought, have misrepresented the Westminster Divines and even Calvin himself, who were writing from a medieval perspective. However, his exposition of the Confession seems more than a little forced at most points. He generally affirms the traditional understanding of a particular passage and then adds a certain element or nuance that he claims has been lost. Most of the language that he uses is extremely orthodox, and one would be hard pressed to find particular comments or formulations that could actually be called heretical (although I do believe they are there for the astute reader). However, the general emphasis of his position certainly seems to lean towards a works righteousness, with more emphasis placed on the individual's faithfulness to the covenant than on God's faithfulness to preserve the elect; more on man holding up his end of the covenant than on the Holy Spirit working effectually upon the individual. While Wilson is certainly more guarded in his language than some of the other Auburn Avenue theologians, he certainly seems to be communicating the same thing. When it comes down to it, his view of the covenant and justification is closer to that of N.T. Wright and the New Perspectives on Paul (see post http://tacstout.blogspot.com/2006/01/nt-wright-fresh-perspective-or-simply.html) than the traditional Reformed position. Ultimately, this is not a "new paradigm" or even a return to a more faithful representation of the traditional Reformed faith. Rather, it is the same mistake than originally caused the Reformers to separate from Rome and the mistake that Christians have always made and will probably always continue to make until Christ's return; it is the attempt to combine human works with the work of Christ in justification.