----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Reisinger" <jreisinger@...>
>Scott Hafeman was the first person recommend
> Schreiner. I asked Scott what one book I should read to basically
understand
> his position and he suggested I start with Tom Schriener book on "The Race
.
> .. ."

How interesting.  The one thing I have noticed about those coming out of the
Fuller "wing" of this debate that we would agree with on righteousness and
imputation is that they are unwilling to draw lines in the sand when it
comes to their friends.  It seems to be a general characteristic of the BGC?
Schreiner is letting Hafemann off easy if he allows Scott to drape his arm
around his own theology.  These Fuller guys, Piper included, just don't seem
to want to pull the trigger, even when it is obvious that what they write
contradicts their mentors and friends.

The same ETS conference that let Pinnock and Sanders off the hook with
regard to open theism, also heard a paper presented by Hafemann challenging
the traditional understanding of imputed righteousness.  We are witnessing
an unfolding train wreck (NPP/Shepherd/Wright/Fuller/Armstrong/Auburn
Avenue) going over a cliff.

>I was told
> that Shepherd's concern was identical our concern over what was labeled
> "Lordship Salvation" versus "Saviour But Not Lord" evangelism.

I don't know where I'm at yet on this.  Some like to say that Shepherd and
Auburn Avenue are merely confronting the non-lordship position from a
covenantal and reformed perspective... IOW, they've gone too far the other
way.  I suppose in the immediate historical context it looks as though this
is an over-correction for bad, anti-lordship Finneyism.  But some of these
issues are beyond that and run farther and deeper back to the Reformation
itself.  This is a "correction" aimed at Luther and Augustine.  I sometimes
wonder if it's still too early in this "game" to understand where we are at
historically.  Personally, it doesn't look good either way.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH