<html>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080">Dear Mr.
Hall,<br><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">When I studied the Reformation
in graduate school I focused on Luther and not Calvin, so that is why I
defer to Robbins and Gerety (R&G) and summarize their book against
Wilson. In their discussion about what it is to be a Christian,
R&G did not mention Wilson’s “second sense” of being a Christian
because they presumably did not find fault with it. They do,
however, disagree with you and Wilson that baptism alone, and presumably
because it is public and objective, means that one has joined the
Covenant and is somehow a “believing Christian.” You will have to
engage R&G in a direct debate about the biblical passages they say
that Wilson cannot use to support such a broad and liberal first
condition for being a Christian. <br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>With
regard to the creeds, I commend you and your church for embracing
previous traditions, but the issue here is whether your eclecticism is
consistent with what most other Reformed evangelicals believe.
R&G object to the fact that Wilson gives these creeds authority that
only the Bible can have. Affirming them may make you an orthodox
Christian, but it does not make you a Reformed Christian.
<br><br>
Again you will have to engage R&G in their specific
criticisms.<br><br>
Thanks for the dialogue,<br><br>
Nick Gier<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=1>"</font></html>