It's a Conspiracy, Man! (Part One)

For those who have not yet figured it out, there is an enormous difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation. The original Reformation was largely about re-aligning the church with the Bible. Hence, the expression, “reformed according to the word.”

Many people assume that our Modern Reformation has the same goal, as in continuing to re-align the church with the Bible. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Our Modern Reformation is all about reforming the church, but not according to the word. Our goal is to re-align the church to Meredith Kline’s quirky version of Reformed theology.

Rather than attempting to use Biblical words in their Biblical sense, we have dedicated ourselves to using Biblical words in a strictly Klinian sense. We have also managed to add most of Kline’s extra-Biblical concepts to our Modern Reformed vocabulary.

Thus, the difference between the original Reformation and our Modern Reformation is one of textual orientation. The original Reformation was oriented to the Bible. Our Modern Reformation is oriented to Meredith Kline. This change is known as the textual revolution.

Thus, to be Reformed used to mean “Reformed According to the Word.” Not anymore. Reformed now means Reformed According to Kline (RAK). Thus, unless you have been RAK-ed, you are not “Reformed.”

In just a few years, our textual revolution has swept through the Reformed world. This was no accident of history. Kline’s followers have worked tirelessly at establishing a Holy Sextuplet of organizations dedicated to replacing the Bible with Kline.

1) The magazine, Modern Reformation, has been one of our most effective means of disguising Kline as the historic Reformed faith. Readers assume that because we pair the words “Modern” and “Reformation,” that we are attempting to continue the original Reformation. Amazingly, few realize that we are doing nothing of the sort.

2) Our radio program, The White Horse Inn, has also been a terrific vehicle for recasting the Reformation to march to the tune of Kline. By including a Lutheran and a “Reformed” Baptist, listeners are led to believe that we are broadly Reformed, in the historic sense. Not so! It’s all Kline, all the time.

3) The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) has been a remarkable productive in taking over Calvindom. Many think that “Confessing” simply refers to being bound by the historic Reformed confessions. However, to join ACE, you must confess to a Klinian reading of these confessions. This is why we privately refer to ACE as the Alliance of Constipated Evangelicals.

4) Our flagship school, Westminster Seminary California (WSC), has been instrumental in our hostile takeover of the Reformed world. Obviously, this is a huge advantage because we have the opportunity to brainwash future pastors in the Truly Reformed faith. Our graduates may not be able to navigate the Scriptures, but at least they know how to discern Law and Gospel.

5) The internet has also been a major tool in the Klinsing of Reformed theology. The number of Truly Reformed blogs is Legion. This has allowed first-year seminary students, disgruntled church members, and self-appointed scholars to play a pivotal role in reshaping Reformed thinking.

6) The sixth pearl in our promotion of the Gospel according to Escondido is the attack on the Federal Vision. Although this originated from an unlikely source, we quickly realized the import of jumping on this bandwagon.

We freely admit that the goals of the Federal Vision are more in line with the original Reformation. This is why it is so important that we utterly destroy the Federal Vision. They are the biggest threat to our Modern Deformation of the historic Reformed faith. The AFVSB has been pleased to play a small part in this mutiny.

Luke 2:52

“And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus increased in favor with God. They point out that favor is actually the Greek word charis, which is usually translated as “grace.” Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace. They assert that this is consistent with standard lexical definitions of charis.

Strange as it may sound, the gospel is at stake! The Modern Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that only refers to favor shown to sinners. Grace can never be used in a general sense to mean "favor." If we ever allow this, then we are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

One of the glorious implications of our innovative position is that God was not gracious from all eternity. Where there is no sin, there can be no grace. God could not be gracious until Adam sinned. Thus, according to Modern Reformed thinking, God wanted to be gracious but had to wait until man sinned. Thus, God was on the edge of his seat, hoping that Adam would sin, so that God could finally be gracious. Soli Deo Gloria!

For those who are not clear on our rational for this, it is very simple. We must insist that grace can only mean “favor in the presence of sin” because we have a whole host of abstract theological formulations that depend upon this flimsy lexical leap. Remember, the gospel is at stake.

Nevertheless, in order to keep our phoney-baloney commitment to sola scriptura we must tacitly acknowledge Luke’s alleged statement. He does seem to say that Jesus grew in charis with God. This presents a problem for those who believe that Jesus never sinned. How could Jesus grow in the charis of God?

In order to preserve the purity of the gospel of our Modern Reformation, we cannot abandon our ridiculous commitment to narrowly defining charis as “favor in the presence of sin.” Our only choice is to conclude that Jesus must have been a sinner.

Thus, Jesus kept increasing in grace because Jesus was a sinner.

Luke 2:40

“The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the grace of God was upon Jesus. They are quick to point out that our English word “grace,” as well as the Greek charis, can simply mean “favor.” Thus, Jesus was under the favor, or grace, of God.

Believe it or not, this is an attack on the gospel. The Reformed faith has always insisted that grace is a technical term that can only refer to favor shown to sinners. Thus, in no sense could Jesus be under the grace of God because Jesus was not a sinner.

This also has profound implications for understanding the time before the fall. Adam was not yet a sinner, and so, in no sense was Adam under the grace of God. Being created and given the privilege of living in the garden may seem grace-like, grace-tastic, and generally, grace-y. However, we must never say this was gracious because Adam was not yet a sinner. God was being nice, but not gracious.

Furthermore, this means that the pre-fall covenant could not have been a covenant of grace. There can be no grace unless sin is present. Since sin did not exist until after the fall, this means that grace could not have existed until after the fall.

Of course, all of this depends upon defining grace as “favor shown to sinners.” Should someone prove that grace does not always carry this precise definition, then our whole system would come crashing down like a house of cards.

This is why we must insist that grace always means “favor shown to sinners,” regardless of any Biblical evidence to the contrary. Being Reformed means stubbornly insisting upon using Biblical words in a far narrower sense than God actually used them in the Bible. Otherwise, you are attacking the gospel.

While Luke allegedly might have said that the grace of God was upon Jesus, no one who is truly Reformed would make such a gaffe. Thus, as a child, Jesus continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was not upon him.

Psalm 7:12

“If a man does not repent, He will sharpen His sword; He has bent His bow and made it ready” (Psalm 7:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that David is talking about unbelievers. God will sharpen his sword for unbelievers. God has bent his bow and made it ready for unbelievers. However, this is the classic Roman mistake of blurring the distinction between justification and sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All subsequent works are part of sanctification. This means that repentance is not part of justification, but of sanctification.

Therefore, when David wrote, “If a man does not repent,” he was not speaking about justification, but sanctification. David was writing to believers.

Thus, God will sharpen his sword for those who are not sanctified. God has bent his bow and made it ready for those who are not sanctified.

Matthew 4:17

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus was preaching the gospel. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification. Thus, Jesus was not preaching the gospel. He was preaching for sanctification. Read the rest of this entry.

Hebrews 13:17

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we ought to obey our leaders and submit to them. While we applaud this advice in theory, it would be dangerous to practice this on a regular basis. This is particularly true with regard to corporate worship.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.

If you are at a church where worship is not rigidly controlled by the RPW, then it is your solemn duty to open up a can of Regulative Principle Whoopass™. Forget the peace of the church. This is too important.

If your church sings hymns or other uninspired songs, you must refuse to sing with everyone else. The same goes for reciting uninspired creeds. Just say no. In no way should you submit to your leaders in this.

If your pastor prays a prayer that is not found in the Bible, try not to listen to what he says. Uninspired prayers of such modern-day Jeroboams bring cursing, not blessing.

If your church sings uninspired doxologies, plug your ears! At all costs, do not let such abominations contaminate you. God hates these ditties, and so should you.

If your church insists on using a piano, organ, or other musical instruments, you must show your disgust publicly. Every time one of these tools of idolatry starts up, make a face like you just got a whiff of something rancid and look around. Be sure to make eye contact and let others know of your displeasure.

If your church dares to observe the Lord’s Supper more than once a quarter, then you must refuse to participate. Adopt your best postal-scowl and stare at the officiants. It is also important that you huff in disgust whenever the plates pass you.

There is no virtue in submitting to your leaders for the peace and unity of the church. Remember, the truly Reformed are only concerned about the purity of the church. The peace and unity of the church mean nothing. The invisible church is unified. That’s all that matters. God doesn’t care about the unity of the visible church, and neither should you.

In summary, don’t worry about obeying your leaders or submitting to them. It’s not like they are keeping watch over your souls. Make sure you cause them endless sorrow and grief until they submit to the RPW. This will bring you the most profit.

Leviticus 10:1-3

“Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.”’” (Leviticus 10:1-3).

Although Federal Visionists claim to be “Biblicists,” they show their true colors in how they blatantly disregard this passage. God hates worship that departs from his specific instructions. Of course, in the NT era, we do not have detailed instructions for worship, but this does not stop us from splitting hairs.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only form of acceptable worship is the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship). Unless the Bible explicitly endorses a particular element of worship, it is absolutely forbidden.

For example, the Bible does not mention the installation of restrooms in churches. Therefore, according to the RPW, our churches should not have restrooms. You just have to hold it. That is why the truly Reformed suffer from constipation, both physically and theologically.

If you install restrooms in your church, then you are not worshiping the RPW. You are worshiping another god, which is no god at all. You might as well be erecting Asherahs or sacrificing to Molech.

Another area in which we need to more aggressively apply the RPW is music. Some Reformed churches do not yet practice exclusive psalmody. If you are unfortunate enough to attend one of these pseudo-churches that are offering such strange fire, it is your duty to bring Reformation. The best way to do this is to refuse to participate in such Baal-worship. Instead, pick a Psalm of the same tune and sing the inspired text, so that God is pleased with at least one person in the congregation. Perhaps your actions alone will prompt God to spare your church from annihilation.

Of course, this is a bit more complicated that it seems. First of all, you better not be singing the Psalm in English because only the original autographs were inspired. According to the RPW, we have no warrant for singing in English. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew text.

Second, under no circumstances are you to sing uninspired tunes. No matter how glorious some of our hymn tunes are, none of them are inspired, and therefore, according to the RPW, they do not belong in our worship services. Thus, to be truly Reformed, you must sing the original Hebrew lyrics to the original Hebrew tune.

Unfortunately, we have no idea what the original Hebrew melodies were. Until God releases these on itunes, we’re screwed. You are better off not singing at all. Thus, when properly followed, the RPW paralyzes worship. Soli Deo Gloria!

Acts 5:31

“He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance leads to the forgiveness of sins. Peter allegedly mentions repentance first because it precedes the forgiveness of sins. Thus, forgiveness is dependent upon repentance. However, these kind of geriatric objections are tiresome.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that we receive the forgiveness of sins via justification, which is by faith alone. Faith alone means that repentance is not included. Thus, repentance cannot precede forgiveness, nor can there be a link between repentance and forgiveness of sins. This is elementary logic.

We’re not really sure why Peter mentions repentance before forgiveness. Perhaps he didn’t know better, being a blue collar worker and all. Or, perhaps he intentionally confused the ordu salutis, testing the Jewish Council, to see if they really understood sola fide. Whatever, as long as we don’t let the text affect our theology.

Song of Songs 4:5

“Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle which feed among the lilies” (Song of Songs 4:5).

Federal Visionists are all over this verse because they think that Solomon is admiring his wife’s physical beauty, comparing her breasts to the twins of a gazelle. However, such crass interpretation flatly contradicts Reformed hermeneutics.

The ability to divide Law from Gospel has long been cherished in the bosom of Reformed hermeneuticians. Federal Visionists accuse us of interpretive augmentation, but the errors of “Biblicism” are as obvious as a pair of cheap implants.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that hermeneutics begins and ends with distinguishing Law from Gospel. Only this principle can keep things in their proper place. Thus, Law/Gospel is the brassiere of our Modern Reformation, offering support and preventing unnecessary bouncing and jostling.

On the surface, Solomon does seem to be extolling the physical beauty of his wife. However, peeping through Law/Gospel glasses enables him to see past physical endowment and appreciate the heaving suppleness of Law and Gospel. The cleavage they produce is unbelievable!

Clearly, Solomon is ravished by the Law and the Gospel. Everywhere he looks, he cannot help but see these twins. We should do the same, praying that we would experience the rapturous joy of discerning Law and Gospel. To be truly Reformed, we must fall in love with this mistress of our Modern Reformation.

As Solomon elsewhere says, be exhilarated with her love. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, let Law/Gospel satisfy us at all times!

Ephesians 1:7

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that in Christ we have the forgiveness of our trespasses. Obviously, Federal Visionists do not understand the first thing about the gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. Justification itself includes the two biggies: the forgiveness of trespasses and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Yet, justification is also the key that unlocks all the other graces of the gospel. Once we have been justified, we are redeemed, reconciled, adopted, united to Christ, et al.

Federal Visionists assert that union with Christ is the priority. After we are united to Christ, then we receive the other graces of the gospel. They would even go so far as to say that union with Christ precedes justification. Obviously, this is a utter heresy.

We cannot be united with Christ until our sins are forgiven in justification. This is impossible. We must be justified before we can ever be united with Christ. Thus, technically speaking, we are justified apart from Christ.

Therefore, we would never say that we have forgiveness of our trespasses “in him.” Rather, apart from him we have the forgiveness of our trespasses.

Ephesians 5:25

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Paul is giving instructions on how to be a better husband. They assert that a husband, by imitating Christ’s example, can love his wife better by giving himself up for her. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the only way that we can become better husbands is by looking to Christ. To the extent that we try to be better husbands, we are only cementing our failure. The law was given to drive us to Christ. If we try to “do” the law, then we are failing to rest in Christ.

Many read the commands of the Bible and think that we are supposed to try to obey them. They read Paul’s commands about marriage and think that he is actually writing about how we can improve our marriages. These same people go to marriage seminars and hear about how to be better husbands. They read books on marriage and think that these are helping their marriages.

However, this is fruitless. We do not need marriage seminars. We do not need to read another book on improving our marriage. This misses Paul’s entire point.

Rather, we need to love Christ and rest in his works. We need to stop working and simply look to Christ. Husbands need to stop being Marthas and be Marys.

Thus, Paul’s real message is revealed: husbands, do not love your wives, nor give yourselves up for her.

2 Peter 3:9

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that God is wishing for all to come to salvation. Besides sounding universalist and a-reformed, this fails to maintain the elementary distinction between justification and sanctification.

The Reformed fatwa has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. All that happens afterwards is sanctification, which would include repentance.

Thus, the Lord is patient, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to sanctification.

Luke 5:32

“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is calling sinners to salvation. However, this is confusing justification and sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. Repentance is not faith alone; therefore, repentance has no role in justification. Repentance is part of sanctification.

Thus, Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to sanctification.

Colossians 1:21-23

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach – if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Colossians 1:21-23).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that glorification is conditional. They assert that Paul states two conditions: 1) “continuing in the faith” and 2) “not moving away from the hope of the gospel.” According to FVers, only if you keep these two conditions will God “present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.” They make glorification dependent upon our fulfilling conditions. Obviously, this threatens the GCS (Golden Chain of Salvation).

The Reformed faith has always insisted that glorification is a technical term that is only used to refer to the final stage of salvation. So, in the GCS passage (Romans 8:29-30), when Paul promises that all who are justified are also glorified, he teaching that our final salvation is only dependent upon justification. This is the glorious simplicity of the GCS.

Thus, once you have received justification, there are no conditions to fulfill. Eternal life is guaranteed. Nothing can threaten your status. According to the GCS, eternal life is conditioned only upon being justified.

If FVers would read Colossians more carefully, they would see that Paul is addressing people whom Christ “has now reconciled.” They have been justified, and thus, according to the GCS, they will be glorified. There are no conditions that they must fulfill. Whether they “continue in the faith” or not is irrelevant. Whether they “move away from the hope of the gospel” or not has no bearing on their glorification.

Now, Paul does state two conditions, but the question is: to what do these conditions apply? Obviously, they cannot be conditions of glorification because that breaks the GCS. Paul must be speaking of sanctification. Sanctification is not part of the GCS, and thus, it is not guaranteed.

Being “presented before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” might sound like glorification, but clearly, Paul must be talking about sanctification. The GCS demands this.

Thus, being Reformed depends on our ability to use the GCS to flatten out any conditions that appear to threaten glorification.

1 John 3:23

“This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us” (1 John 3:23).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that we are “commanded” to “believe.” However, this turns faith into a work, which is a standard Pelagian mistake.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that faith is a resting, relaxing, and reposing in the finished work of Christ. In no way is faith a work. In no way is faith obeying a commandment.

If we ever view belief or faith as a commandment, then we are going to turn faith into obedience, which is a work. Faith is in no sense a work. Faith occasionally performs works, but faith is not a work itself.

Those who claim that faith is a commandment to be obeyed are preaching a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.

2 Corinthians 7:10

For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that repentance without regret leads to salvation. However, this reverses the ordo salutis.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, apart from works such as repentance. Repentance is part of sanctification. In no way does sanctification lead to justification. Thus, repentance can never “lead” to salvation. This is backwards. Rather, salvation leads to repentance.

Luke 16:30

“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” (Luke 16:30).

This is a well-known parable in which a rich man is suffering torment in Hades. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers, stating “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!”

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the rich man is concerned about the salvation of his five brothers. Notice how they make repentance a metonym or even synonym for conversion. However, this does violence to the gospel of our modern Reformation.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is the heart of the gospel. This justification is received by faith alone, which means that works such as repentance have no part in justification. Rather, repentance is part of sanctification.

Obviously, the rich man is not concerned about the salvation of his five brothers because he does not mention justification or faith alone. Thus, they must already be believers; otherwise, the rich man would have said, “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will have faith alone.”

Instead, the rich man says, “They will repent.” Thus, he is concerned about their sanctification, but not their justification. The rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers so that they will be sanctified.

Exodus 12:3

“Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, ‘On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household’” (Exodus 12:3).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that all children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration. They point out that the Lord told Moses to address “all the congregation of Israel,” and they assert that children were considered part of the congregation of Israel.

Furthermore, Federal Visionists point out that Israel was to take “a lamb for each household,” and they assert that children are part of these so-called “households.”

Federal Visionists then state that because all the children within Israel were included in the Passover celebration, so we should also include all of our children in the Lord’s Supper. In other words, Federal Visionists advocate Paedocommunion. However, this position is fraught with problems – historical, theological, and exegetical.

The Reformed faith has unanimously rejected Paedocommunion as beyond the pale of reformodoxy. All the Reformers and Puritans vehemently denounced it. Even Roman Catholics forbid it. When ecumenical blogs like the PuritanBoard do not allow members who are Paedocommunists, then one ought to think twice about adopting such a bizarre position. Yet, Federal Visionists are undeterred.

Frankly, the historical evidence carries all the weight for us. There is really no need to re-examine the exegetical or theological arguments for Paedocommunion. If Calvin rejected it, that’s good enough for us. Nevertheless, it could be helpful to have a few responses prepared.

Theologically, Paedocommunion arguments are all smoke and mirrors. Federal Visionists get a big kick out of linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper, but this is mixing Law and Gospel. Passover was part of the Old Covenant, which is the Covenant of Works. Communion is part of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Thus, under the Covenant of Works, God may have included children, but under the Covenant of Grace, God excludes our children.

Exegetically, Paedocommunion has no Scriptural support. First, the word “Paedocommunion” does not appear in the Bible. Second, no verse in the Bible ever shows the practice of Paedocommunion (admittedly, this is the same argument that Baptists use against us regarding Paedobaptism, but still). Third, Jesus instituted Communion with adults. He did not invite their children. Thus, we bar them from the table.

Furthermore, God did not intend children participate in the Passover. Although God specifies that the Passover was for “all the congregation of Israel” and for each “household,” children are not specifically mentioned. Thus, according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, children would have been excluded from Passover.

Therefore, on all fronts, Paedocommunion is an absolute train wreck. The whole point of Communion is to give the church a visible sign of the grace of God. Thus, Communion is the infrequent reminder that our children are outside of the grace of God, being only legally and not organically connected to Christ and his covenant.

Mark 8:35

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that salvation hinges upon whether one is willing to “lose his life.” However, this is the classic Pelagian mistake of confusing Law and Gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the Gospel is an unconditional gift appropriated by faith alone. Conditions such as being willing to “lose your life” are not part of the Gospel. This is the Law.

If you try to “lose your life” for Jesus’ sake, then you are trying to save yourself. You are putting yourself back under the Law. Far better to simply rest in Jesus and forget about “losing your life.”

Discerning Law and Gospel is the key to being Reformed. Until you’ve read the Bible through Law-Gospel glasses, you are missing everything.

Along these lines, we have good news: Law-Gospel glasses will soon become obsolete! Ophthalmologists have been working closely with The White Horse Inn to develop a Lasik procedure that will produce perfect Law-Gospel vision.

Theologians who were previously unable to discern an indicative from an imperative can now have 20/20 Law-Gospel vision just one week after the surgery. WSC has already made Law-Gospel Lasik surgery a prerequisite for enrollment, and NAPARC is considering making it mandatory for those seeking ordination in Reformed churches.

There are risks with Law-Gospel Lasik surgery. Side effects include increased pompousness, a propensity towards sectarian hyper-abstract theological issues, an inability to take the Bible at face value, and a man-crush on Caspar Olevianus.

It is unknown whether Law-Gospel Lasik surgery is reversible, but you can overcome the side effects of this procedure through a cranial-rectal extraction.

Matthew 6:3-4

“But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:3-4).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that the Father will reward us when our giving is done in secret. Furthermore, they say that we should think about this reward and use this reward as a motive for giving. However, this contradicts the modern Reformed approach to sanctification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our only motivation for obedience is gratitude. Once we are justified by faith alone, then our eternal destinies are secure. Thus, our only possible motive for obedience is gratitude.

If you are obeying with the expectation of some kind of a reward, then you are failing to rest in the finished work of Christ. Rewards are simply Pelagian. Thus, unless you are overflowing with gratitude, you should not obey.

It’s guilt, grace, gratitude. Anything else, and you are not Reformed™.

Titus 3:10

“Reject a factious man after a first and second warning” (Titus 3:10).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that factious men ought to be rejected on the principle that they are factious. In other words, if someone is proved to be factious, we should reject them and pay no attention to what they say.

However, this is the fallacy of the poisoned well, that something is bad because of where it came from. Rather, we ought to listen carefully to factious men and treat them as reputable witnesses, giving them every opportunity to malign the brethren.

Those who reject factious men ought to be rejected after a first and second warning.

Mark 6:12

“So they went out and preached that people should repent” (Mark 6:12).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus sent his twelve disciples out to preach the gospel. While a common misconception, this is an utter departure from the Reformers.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the heart of the gospel is justification, which is received by faith alone. Repentance is a post-justification work of sanctification. It has nothing to do with justification, and therefore, nothing to do with the gospel.

Thus, when Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach that people should repent, he was sending them out to preach the message of sanctification, not the gospel.

Hebrews 10:29

“How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that this is a warning to covenant breakers. They note that the author of Hebrews threatens that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” Thus, it is argued that the New Covenant is conditional.

You see, Federal Visionists believe that the New Covenant is not unconditional. That is, the New Covenant can be either kept of broken. Thus, FVers do not believe that membership in the New Covenant is necessarily permanent. Some are temporary members. Such temporary members are those who break the covenant. They will not be eternally saved.

Federal Visionists point out that this verse speaks of those who were in the covenant. They were “sanctified” “by the blood of the covenant.” Thus, they were members of the New Covenant. They were given all the privileges of the covenant.

However, their covenant status is now in doubt due to their unfaithfulness. Three proofs are offered: 1) they have “trampled under foot the Son of God;” 2) they have “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant;” 3) they have “insulted the Spirit of grace.” These are certainly three damnable actions.

Admittedly, at face value, it does seem as if the author of Hebrews is saying that some who were “sanctified” will receive “punishment.” However, there is no reason to fall for such bumbling exegesis.

The Reformed Answer
The Reformed faith has always insisted that the New Covenant is unconditional. Once you are justified by faith alone, then you are eternally secure. No amount of “trampling,” “disregarding,” or “insulting” can ever threaten your covenant status. Heck, you could even deny Christ, and he will not deny you. Remember, no branches are ever removed from the vine. Once you exercise faith alone, then you are eternally secure.

This verse has long been a favorite of Arminians, and now, their bastard children, the Federal Visionists, have latched on to this verse with a vengeance. However, there is a cornucopia of ways to escape the plain language of the text and remain Reformed.

Some in Calvindom argue that this verse is speaking of those who were never in the covenant to begin with. They looked like they were in the covenant, but they were not. These are like the Frisbee that gets stuck in the tree and mistaken for a branch but is eventually removed. In order to circumvent the text, they do not take “sanctified” to refer to Sanctification, but to sanctification, which in this case means something like benefiting from the general holiness of the church.

Others prefer to speak of those who were “sanctified” as those who were in the outer sphere of the covenant, but were never in the inner core of the covenant, whatever that means.

While these are all legitimate Reformed ways of dispensing with the text, we think a better answer lies in the text itself. “Sanctified” is an aorist verb, meaning that it is referring to a one-time action. Everyone knows that Sanctification is an ongoing action, not a one-time action. Thus, while the author of Hebrews used the word “sanctified,” he was really referring to Justification.

Now, this does not get us off the hook just yet. If anything, this tightens the noose a bit because we take the author to be saying that those who have been Justified are deserving of a severer punishment. We’re not quite safe in Calvin yet.

If you look more closely at the text, you will notice that there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating that this is a question. Thus, this is not an indicative statement, but a question.

The question is essentially, “How much severer punishment will those deserve who have been sanctified (Justified)?” Obviously trampling, disregarding, and insulting do deserve a much severer punishment.

However, remember that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Justified man. He has already been forgiven of all of his sins, including trampling, disregarding, and insulting God. He cannot sin his way out of Justification. That’s impossible!

Thus, the author of Hebrews is in no way saying that such a person will receive any actual punishment. He is more deserving of punishment, but he will never receive it because this was all transferred to Christ on the cross.

Thus, only a purely-Reformed understanding of sola fide can ensure that we handle such texts with integrity. Otherwise, this passage does sound FVish.

As this letter was read to the Hebrews, some newbies may have been confused by the hypothetical question, but undoubtedly, they were quickly straightened out by ANEPARC (Ancient Near Eastern Presbyterian and Reformed Council).

Matthew 6:9

“Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name'” (Matthew 6:9).

Federal Visionists love the Lord’s Prayer and think that we ought to teach it to our children. They assert that children of believers have some sort of a relationship with God. Therefore, they argue, we should teach our children to pray. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that our children are unregenerate, and therefore, they are dead in their trespasses and sins. They have no relationship with God whatsoever. In no way are they connected to Christ. They are vipers in diapers.

Nonetheless, for some reason, modern Reformed folk still baptize their children. Yet, we insist that in no way does this baptism “save” them or “unite” them to Christ. They are just as damned and separate from Christ as are the children of the non-elect.

Until our children are regenerated, they should be treated as the unbelievers that they are. Most importantly, this means that they should be banned from the Lord’s Supper lest they be judged for failing to discern the Lord’s body, namely, that they are not part of it.

Additionally, children should not be taught to sing to the Lord, as this would be hypocritical, professing with their mouths something that is not true in their hearts.

Also, children should be prevented from tithing, as this would teach them legalism, that they could earn God’s favor through their gifts.

Finally, children should definitely not be taught to pray, as God does not hear the prayers of unbelievers. Until they have a crisis-conversion experience, our children should not be taught the Lord’s Prayer, lest they pray it in private.

It might even be preferable to keep children out of worship services altogether, since worship is for believers.

Mark 1:15

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that preaching the gospel includes both a call to repent and a call to believe. They even claim that the call to repentance can precede the call to faith. Obviously, this denies sola fide.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone, which means that repentance is not part of justification. Thus, the call to repentance is not part of the gospel. The call to repentance is the call to sanctification.

For this reason, the call to faith must always precede the call to repentance. If you switch these, then you have fallen from Modernist Reformation. Thus, only a Pelagian would say, “repent and believe in the gospel.”

Romans 5:18

“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Romans 5:18).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that it is appropriate to say that we are justified by the death of Christ. They argue that “one act of righteousness” must be referring to the cross, not the law-keeping of Christ. Therefore, we are justified by the death of Christ. Obviously, this is a denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification consists of two parts. First, we receive the forgiveness through the death of Christ. Second, we receive life through the transfer of the righteousness of Christ to us.

For justification to be Justification, you need both parts of Christ: his life and death. Forgiveness of sins is no good unless we also receive his righteousness. Thus, to say that we are justified by one act of righteousness is incomplete, at best. Rather, we are justified by many acts of righteousness.

Mark 1:6

“John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey” (Mark 1:6).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that John’s diet bears some symbolic significance. They assert that locusts and wild honey should call to mind some of the Old Testament types and inform us of a “deeper” meaning.

For example, in the prophets, locusts were used to symbolically portray the enemies of Israel. Thus, John eating locusts teaches us that Israel’s enemies were going to be defeated.

Also, the Promised Land was flowing with milk and honey. However, John is eating wild honey in the desert. Supposedly, this absence of honey in Israel symbolizes how the land of Israel is under the curse of God.

Obviously, such fanciful typology strains the limits of rationality. The Reformed faith has always emphasized sound exegesis over whimsical allegory.

Clearly, locusts represent the Law, and honey represents the Gospel. This is incontrovertible. John would eat locusts first (the Law), and then wash these down with honey (the Gospel).

As we never tire of reiterating, the key to maintaining a modern Reformed understanding of the Scriptures is the Law/Gospel hermeneutic. Don't leave home without it!

Genesis 3:22-24

“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’ – therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:22-24).

Federal Visionists love this passage because they think that this is the first time that God prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the ToL (Tree of Life). They assert that God gave Adam and Eve access to the ToL from the beginning. Rather than requiring them to merit covenant blessings, God gave the blessings of the covenant upfront, apart from their merit. Thus, the pre-fall covenant was supposedly based upon “grace.”

Dude.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that the pre-fall covenant was a COW (Covenant of Works). Adam was sinless, but not righteous. He could have merited covenant blessings through his works of perfect obedience. Thus, if Adam had obeyed perfectly, he would have earned access to the ToL, but not before.

Now, the Bible never indicates that God had previously barred Adam from the ToL. In fact, the text explicitly states the opposite, as the TKGE (Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) was the only tree that was forbidden (Genesis 2:16-17). However, we have never let the word of God stand in the way of our modern Reformed imagination.

Notwithstanding the Scriptures, the Reformed faith has always insisted that both trees were out of bounds. This is precisely where the theological train track splits, and unfortunately, Federal Visionists take a right (heading home to Rome), when they should take a left (easing towards Escondido).

The two trees of the garden represent the Law and the Gospel. The TKGE represents the Law, and the ToL represents the Gospel. If Adam had kept the Law (TKGE), then he would have earned access to the Gospel (ToL). Those who deny this are SoL.

Federal Visionists claim that this is speculative eisegesis, but isn’t this just the kettle calling the pot black? Federal Visionists are the ones who employ a typological hermeneutic that would make Origen squirm.

Typology is absolutely necessary, but only when proper hermeneutics are employed. The Reformed hermeneutic is Law/Gospel. Until you read the Bible through Law/Gospel glasses, then you are misreading the Scriptures. Once you understand the Law/Gospel grid, then you will have the inklination to see every pair in the Bible as symbolic of the Law and the Gospel. For instance, consider these obvious examples:

The sun and the moon = the Law and the Gospel
The two wives of Lamech = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels that rescued Lot = the Law and the Gospel
The two tablets of stone = the Law and the Gospel
The two cherubim on the ark = the Law and the Gospel
Nadab and Abihu = the Law and the Gospel
The twin gazelles in Song of Songs = the Law and the Gospel
The two female bears that devoured the youths who insulted Elisha = the Law and the Gospel
The two fish in the feeding of the 5,000 = the Law and the Gospel
The sons of Zebedee = the Law and the Gospel
The two greatest commandments = the Law and the Gospel
The two denarii in the Good Samaritan = the Law and the Gospel
The two mites of the widow = the Law and the Gospel
The two angels in Jesus’ tomb = the Law and the Gospel
The two soldiers who guarded Peter = the Law and the Gospel
The two years Paul spent in Rome = the Law and the Gospel
The two-edged sword of the word of God = the Law and the Gospel
The two witnesses in Revelation = the Law and the Gospel

This is just a sample of how understanding Law and Gospel opens up the Scriptures in breathtaking ways. For all their self-vaunted “Biblicism,” you won’t see Federal Visionists engage in this quality of interpretation. So much for exegesis. So much for the Bible.

Dude.

Romans 2:4

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the kindness of God leads us to repentance, which they take to mean conversion. Obviously, Federal Visionists are leaning more towards Trent than Geneva.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification does not include repentance. Justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is part of sanctification, not justification.

Thus, when Paul wrote, “the kindness of God leads you to repentance,” he was not writing about justification or even conversion. He was writing about sanctification. The kindness of God leads you to sanctification.

Matthew 11:19

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her works” (Matthew 11:19).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that wisdom is justified by her works. The verb dikaiow should be understood as “proved to be righteous,” it is argued. This corresponds with the so-called “final justification,” of which Federal Visionists are so fond. However, this contradicts the modern Reformed definition of justification.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification always and only refers to the transfer of the righteousness of Christ. Justification never means “vindication” or “proved to be righteous.” There is no such thing as “final justification.” Also, justification is always and only by faith alone. “Justification” and “works” do not go together in any sense.

We are sure that Jesus took great pains to explain JBFA to his disciples. After all, this is the heart of the gospel. When Jesus said, “wisdom is justified by her works,” he was obviously testing his disciples. Peter probably rebuked him, “Far be it for wisdom to be justified by her works, Lord! This shall not happen. This is Pelagian.”

1 Peter 4:17

“For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that the household of God obeys the gospel. However, this is the toxic cocktail formed by mixing law and gospel.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that law and gospel are mutually exclusive categories. They are as different as night and day. They are certainly not to be mixed.

Law is God’s demand for perfect obedience. Hence, obedience is only associated with the law.

Gospel is God’s free gift. It cannot be earned or merited through obedience. Obedience has nothing to do with gospel.

Thus, “obedience” and “gospel” are incongruous. Those who attempt to “obey the gospel” find themselves plunging towards Pelagius.

Rather, we appropriate the gospel by faith alone. This faith alone rests upon the gospel. In no way should we ever attempt to obey the gospel. This is turns gospel into law, which is not good news.

Luke 15:7

“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that Jesus is talking about the joy in heaven over each conversion. Notice how Federal Visionists equate repentance with conversion. They even argue that repentance can be a synonym for conversion. However, this is inconsistent with Reformed categories of Systematic Theology.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that justification is by faith alone. This means that repentance is not part of justification. Repentance is a work, and thus, repentance is part of sanctification.

While heaven might rejoice over conversions, we cannot say this with confidence because Jesus is not speaking about conversions. He is speaking about repentance, or sanctification. Thus, heaven rejoices over sanctification.

Mark 1:4

“John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4).

Federal Visionists love this verse because they think that forgiveness of sins is contingent upon repentance and/or baptism. Obviously, this is Pelagian and/or Catholic.

The Reformed faith has always insisted that forgiveness of sins is granted in justification, which is received by faith alone. Thus, forgiveness comes through faith alone. Neither baptism nor repentance has anything to do with forgiveness. In no way are they connected to forgiveness.

Repentance is highly recommended but also highly optional. Remember that repentance is a work. Hence, those who say that repentance is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that you must do a work in order to merit forgiveness. Obviously, this is the essence of Pelagianism.

Baptism is a beautiful picture of the forgiveness of sins and a wonderful experience. However, in order for salvation to be absolutely free, baptism must be absolutely optional. In no way is forgiveness of sins dependent on baptism. Those who say that baptism is “for” the forgiveness of sins are teaching that baptism triggers forgiveness. This inevitably leads to the old heresy of baptismal regeneration, which is the calling card of Roman Catholicism.

Federal Visionists make the elementary mistake of forgetting that John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. As the Old Covenant was simply a re-publication of the Covenant of Works, the Baptist’s message was blatantly Pelagian and proto-Tridentine. That’s what the Covenant of Works was!

Thus, John could make outlandish Pelagian statements because he was in a different dispensation. Thankfully, Jesus ushered in an entirely different dispensation, with an entirely different covenant (NC/CoG), and an entirely different message (JBFA). Praise God for discontinuity!